Civil Affairs Specialist
Civil Affairs Specialist
Posted on Feb 3, 2014
(37F) PSYOPS Vs. (38B) Civil Affairs -- what are the pros and cons of each?
151K
146
72
16
16
0
My window for re-enlistment is opening this year and I'm strongly considering re-classing to one of these two MOSs. Do any of you hold (or have held) one of these specialties and would you mind discussing the pros/cons of each? What is daily life like in garrison/deployed? I've read the Army's description of each, and although they both sound interesting, I've already learned that it's best to learn from people who are actually doing the work, rather than what some recruiting-based website says. Thank you for any input. <br>
Posted in these groups: 
Civil Affairs
Reclass
37F: Psychological Operations Specialist
38B: Civil Affairs Specialist
Civil Affairs Reclass 37F: Psychological Operations Specialist 38B: Civil Affairs Specialist
Edited 10 y ago
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 19
26
26
0
The majority of responses on here so far have been so misinformed as to be insulting and as such I can't even try to formulate a response that won't be just as condescending and emotionally charged.
First off, there are no MISO soldiers. There is no such thing. MISO is the operation conducted. It's conducted by PSYOP soldiers. Second, to say that CA is busier or has "cooler" missions than PSYOP worldwide is simply an asinine opinion and holds absolutely no truth. in reality both are equally busy and each need the other in order to accomplish their mission. CA could hold all the vetcaps and medcaps (or whatever they call them currently) they want to but unless they have PSYOP there to convince the locals it's worthwhile and fits within their respective belief paradigm, then fewer people will show up and hence the mission will be of limited success. Without CA to pay for (they actually have a class called "money as a weapon system") or arrange for bridges, schools, water treatment ants or wells to be built then PSYOP has less actions to exploit in order to change behavior.
As someone who has combat deployed as a tactical PSYOP soldier from E2-E6 three times, to include the invasion, instructed PSYOP for over 5 years, three of them full time and who has been intimately involved in the training of BOTH PSYOP and CA let me put it this way:
If you want to remain tactical and operate in independent three man tactical teams, working in forward operating areas with SF, Infantry and other specialized groups, maintain your high level of tactical, technical, and physical proficiency, and still retain your traditional role of training soldiers as an NCO then go PSYOP. CA does very little tactical training during reclass school (in reclass school that means they do absolutely ZERO tactical training). As PSYOP, You are on the ground conducting face to face relationship building constantly. You are learning local customs, values and beliefs and in turn utilize them to turn a target audiences behavior to one desired by the overall mission statement. It's a big picture MOS as many things take a great deal of time to bear fruit. Do you use a speaker and hand out leaflets? Sure, you can do just that, but only the small minded and unimaginative do that. MISO operations are more and more becoming the focus of the modern war effort and if I recall correctly between CA and PSYOP only one is advising the Joint Chiefs on developing the war effort to defeat and demoralize the enemy AND avoid turning the civilian population we are trying to liberate into an insurgent force.
Now. CA has its benefits. if you want immediate gratification and physical evidence of your accomplishments then go CA. You can follow the mission from conceptualization to completion. You will work with civilian military authority and get wells, businesses, infrastructure etc built and get things done. You have money at your disposal and can illicit change to facilitate developing countries towards modernism. However, since many of these progress resistant cultures work on status, CA is by necessity EXTREMELY top heavy. Where PSYOP's BN staff officer is usually a SSG or SFC, a CA company has a LTC, and a ton of other officers all the way down and only the CA team itself consists of real enlisted troops even if they still have a CPT or MAJ directly overseeing them. The rest of the enlisted will likely end up as admin and coffee getters though they are considered staff NCOs. The other benefit of CA is because they are as top heavy as they are, when we start talking about manning the USCAPOC command itself, there are way more choices from CA than PSYOP. So most of the command structure of USACAPOC, just because of sheer numbers, is chosen from the CA ranks. As you can imagine, the command tends to lean towards the CA side of things.
I have worked with some great CA soldiers (enlisted and officer) and I, in actuality respect CA as a branch. I, and a handful of my fellow instructors, went to great lengths to heal the rift that had developed over the last 20 years between the two. As stated above, we really need the other to be truly successful. Having said all that, I'd rather retire now than ever even consider being a 38B. Some of the smartest people in the military tend to be in PSYOP. PSYOP requires non conventional thinking and dealing with intrinsic and intangible concepts. It's not like seeing a town with no sewer or garbage services and coming back with a thick wallet and fixing it. PSYOP would try to convince the people it was the insurgencies fault and if they did this and that, then a bridge could be built (by CA and the engineers).
It would be my suggestion to visit a PSYOP and CA company and drill with each once. See what you see. PSYOP isn't for everyone.
First off, there are no MISO soldiers. There is no such thing. MISO is the operation conducted. It's conducted by PSYOP soldiers. Second, to say that CA is busier or has "cooler" missions than PSYOP worldwide is simply an asinine opinion and holds absolutely no truth. in reality both are equally busy and each need the other in order to accomplish their mission. CA could hold all the vetcaps and medcaps (or whatever they call them currently) they want to but unless they have PSYOP there to convince the locals it's worthwhile and fits within their respective belief paradigm, then fewer people will show up and hence the mission will be of limited success. Without CA to pay for (they actually have a class called "money as a weapon system") or arrange for bridges, schools, water treatment ants or wells to be built then PSYOP has less actions to exploit in order to change behavior.
As someone who has combat deployed as a tactical PSYOP soldier from E2-E6 three times, to include the invasion, instructed PSYOP for over 5 years, three of them full time and who has been intimately involved in the training of BOTH PSYOP and CA let me put it this way:
If you want to remain tactical and operate in independent three man tactical teams, working in forward operating areas with SF, Infantry and other specialized groups, maintain your high level of tactical, technical, and physical proficiency, and still retain your traditional role of training soldiers as an NCO then go PSYOP. CA does very little tactical training during reclass school (in reclass school that means they do absolutely ZERO tactical training). As PSYOP, You are on the ground conducting face to face relationship building constantly. You are learning local customs, values and beliefs and in turn utilize them to turn a target audiences behavior to one desired by the overall mission statement. It's a big picture MOS as many things take a great deal of time to bear fruit. Do you use a speaker and hand out leaflets? Sure, you can do just that, but only the small minded and unimaginative do that. MISO operations are more and more becoming the focus of the modern war effort and if I recall correctly between CA and PSYOP only one is advising the Joint Chiefs on developing the war effort to defeat and demoralize the enemy AND avoid turning the civilian population we are trying to liberate into an insurgent force.
Now. CA has its benefits. if you want immediate gratification and physical evidence of your accomplishments then go CA. You can follow the mission from conceptualization to completion. You will work with civilian military authority and get wells, businesses, infrastructure etc built and get things done. You have money at your disposal and can illicit change to facilitate developing countries towards modernism. However, since many of these progress resistant cultures work on status, CA is by necessity EXTREMELY top heavy. Where PSYOP's BN staff officer is usually a SSG or SFC, a CA company has a LTC, and a ton of other officers all the way down and only the CA team itself consists of real enlisted troops even if they still have a CPT or MAJ directly overseeing them. The rest of the enlisted will likely end up as admin and coffee getters though they are considered staff NCOs. The other benefit of CA is because they are as top heavy as they are, when we start talking about manning the USCAPOC command itself, there are way more choices from CA than PSYOP. So most of the command structure of USACAPOC, just because of sheer numbers, is chosen from the CA ranks. As you can imagine, the command tends to lean towards the CA side of things.
I have worked with some great CA soldiers (enlisted and officer) and I, in actuality respect CA as a branch. I, and a handful of my fellow instructors, went to great lengths to heal the rift that had developed over the last 20 years between the two. As stated above, we really need the other to be truly successful. Having said all that, I'd rather retire now than ever even consider being a 38B. Some of the smartest people in the military tend to be in PSYOP. PSYOP requires non conventional thinking and dealing with intrinsic and intangible concepts. It's not like seeing a town with no sewer or garbage services and coming back with a thick wallet and fixing it. PSYOP would try to convince the people it was the insurgencies fault and if they did this and that, then a bridge could be built (by CA and the engineers).
It would be my suggestion to visit a PSYOP and CA company and drill with each once. See what you see. PSYOP isn't for everyone.
(26)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I'm in the same position for the officer side and this has definitely helped me in my decision process.
Could you talk a little about your experience with officers or explain what their role was during most of your PSYOP time? I can find little info regarding what a PSYOP officer actually does but the overall description of it as an MOS seems right up my alley
Could you talk a little about your experience with officers or explain what their role was during most of your PSYOP time? I can find little info regarding what a PSYOP officer actually does but the overall description of it as an MOS seems right up my alley
(1)
(0)
SFC(P) (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see)
Officers in PSYOP are structured similar to conventional forces I would say. Each detachement (platoon sized element) is supposed to have an OIC that’s usually a 1LT or CPT. Historically a DET supports a BDE so that’s one CPT holding his own against a fair number of MAJ or higher as the OIC typically attends BUBs, CUBs, targeting meetings (both kinetic and non lethal), etc. They are the BDE staff officer for the BDE. This is supposed to be changing because this leaves a three man team lead by an E6 or E5 to support a BN. They in turn become the staff officer for that level and it’s tough on an E5 to be heard in a room full of LTs, CPTs, etc. plus they get run ragged trying to keep up and support several different companies and fire teams operating in an AO.
The other responsibilities you’ll find are the obvious OPs level, XO at times and Commander. The difficulty for the officer is real time on the ground experience as they are usually stuck in staff and mission development. With the change to an DET and OIC supporting the BN level, I would imagine that will allow more time dealing directly with the various target audiences and contracted assets, etc.
I could go on but here is the real meat of the officer corps in PSYOP.
USACAPOC (civil affairs and PSYOP command) manages both on the reserve side of the house. The problem is Civil Affairs is extremely too heavy due to the nature of their job and working as a civil-military liaison. Most countries we operate in have status driven cultures and so to accomplish that mission CA teams all have a OIC and those officers are constantly out conducting key leader engagements and dealing with community leadership and government. Because of all that, the pool for career progression is significantly weighed in favor of the CA officer. If you’re looking simply at the pool of available officers to command USACAPOC (I believe it’s a 1 star command), you will find that 80% of the available choices will be CA. Most PSYOP companies have a CPT or MAJ as a Commander. BN is a MAJ or LTC and Group (BDE) level is obviously the LTC-COL. Competition is stuff and once you get to a certain point, you end up competing with the immense pool of CA. Their CA teams usually have a CPT in my experience. So they have many O3-O4s just at the company level and I’ve seen more than a few LTC company commanders.
Hopefully I explained that well enough. I apologize for any typos. I’m using my phone to respond.
Also, remember this is simply my experience in the last 20 years I’ve been in PSYOP and is strictly the reserve side of the house as that’s where my experience lies and where about 75% or more of the force resides. Please let me know if I can clarify anything that I was vague about.
Officers in PSYOP are structured similar to conventional forces I would say. Each detachement (platoon sized element) is supposed to have an OIC that’s usually a 1LT or CPT. Historically a DET supports a BDE so that’s one CPT holding his own against a fair number of MAJ or higher as the OIC typically attends BUBs, CUBs, targeting meetings (both kinetic and non lethal), etc. They are the BDE staff officer for the BDE. This is supposed to be changing because this leaves a three man team lead by an E6 or E5 to support a BN. They in turn become the staff officer for that level and it’s tough on an E5 to be heard in a room full of LTs, CPTs, etc. plus they get run ragged trying to keep up and support several different companies and fire teams operating in an AO.
The other responsibilities you’ll find are the obvious OPs level, XO at times and Commander. The difficulty for the officer is real time on the ground experience as they are usually stuck in staff and mission development. With the change to an DET and OIC supporting the BN level, I would imagine that will allow more time dealing directly with the various target audiences and contracted assets, etc.
I could go on but here is the real meat of the officer corps in PSYOP.
USACAPOC (civil affairs and PSYOP command) manages both on the reserve side of the house. The problem is Civil Affairs is extremely too heavy due to the nature of their job and working as a civil-military liaison. Most countries we operate in have status driven cultures and so to accomplish that mission CA teams all have a OIC and those officers are constantly out conducting key leader engagements and dealing with community leadership and government. Because of all that, the pool for career progression is significantly weighed in favor of the CA officer. If you’re looking simply at the pool of available officers to command USACAPOC (I believe it’s a 1 star command), you will find that 80% of the available choices will be CA. Most PSYOP companies have a CPT or MAJ as a Commander. BN is a MAJ or LTC and Group (BDE) level is obviously the LTC-COL. Competition is stuff and once you get to a certain point, you end up competing with the immense pool of CA. Their CA teams usually have a CPT in my experience. So they have many O3-O4s just at the company level and I’ve seen more than a few LTC company commanders.
Hopefully I explained that well enough. I apologize for any typos. I’m using my phone to respond.
Also, remember this is simply my experience in the last 20 years I’ve been in PSYOP and is strictly the reserve side of the house as that’s where my experience lies and where about 75% or more of the force resides. Please let me know if I can clarify anything that I was vague about.
(2)
(0)
SFC(P) (Join to see)
CPT (Join to see)
I have to apologize. I hadn’t read my initial comment in a long time and it seems I repeated myself quite a bit in my response to you. Please let me know if there are specifics you’d like me to answer to avoid repetition of effort.
I have to apologize. I hadn’t read my initial comment in a long time and it seems I repeated myself quite a bit in my response to you. Please let me know if there are specifics you’d like me to answer to avoid repetition of effort.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SFC(P) (Join to see) no need. It was repetitive in the right ways. Honestly that was the most detailed and straightforward explanation of the O side ive been able to get. I really appreciate it! Definitely have given me plenty to think about. Career progression because of a larger pool in CA doesnt really interest me. I kinda like the challenge of competing against the odds. If i get promoted easier just cuz theres more of us... dunno if that's for me
(1)
(0)
13
12
1
With all respect to my MISO/ PSYOP bretheren, they don't have much to do anymore. The media and themes are generally produced at division level and above, and the Tactical Psyop Teams rarely have more to do than hand out product and maybe run a RIAB if they are lucky. They are often severely constrained by the Embassy Country Teams, who feel that PSYOP messages subvert their efforts to build cooperation.
Civil Affairs, on the other hand is very busy. We have operations all over the world, and not just in Afghanistan. If you want to get out and make a difference, CA is for you. If you are a shrinking violet, it is most definitely NOT for you.
Both MOSs have excellent opportunities for schools and rank progression. I think the mission is the tiebreaker.
Civil Affairs, on the other hand is very busy. We have operations all over the world, and not just in Afghanistan. If you want to get out and make a difference, CA is for you. If you are a shrinking violet, it is most definitely NOT for you.
Both MOSs have excellent opportunities for schools and rank progression. I think the mission is the tiebreaker.
(13)
(1)
1LT (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see)
I disagree with the mission point. I feel that PSYOP and CA are both heavily employed throughout the world. CA has its mission set and is running it, and PSYOP has theirs. CA may be running vetcaps and building wells in South America, but PSYOP is conducting loudspeaker broadcasts with Korea. CA is everywhere, just as PSYOP and SF is everywhere. If you want to make a difference join either or, both are highly utilized assets in the field, in peace and war.
A Tactical PSYOP Team with a solid TC, ATL, and PSYOP Spec will have loads of work to do. Especially if you are actually spread out with supported units (e.g. INF BN, SF ODA, etc.).
Just because HOA is a slow pace mission for PSYOP does not mean that their are no other operations. Heck, PSYOP is in Iraq right now training their counterparts.
1SG, as you know, there is so much more to PSYOP than just handing out paper and operating a speaker. It is useful, especially when used with CA and SF, hence 1st SOCOM, the creation of USACAPOC (originally the reserve Speical Operations Command), and now 1st SFC which has AD PSYOP and AD CA units under it.
I would tell a potential recruit, if you want to truly help people by providing them with medical, food, and housing, go CA. If you want to build rapport, persuade, change, and influence, then go PSYOP.
I disagree with the mission point. I feel that PSYOP and CA are both heavily employed throughout the world. CA has its mission set and is running it, and PSYOP has theirs. CA may be running vetcaps and building wells in South America, but PSYOP is conducting loudspeaker broadcasts with Korea. CA is everywhere, just as PSYOP and SF is everywhere. If you want to make a difference join either or, both are highly utilized assets in the field, in peace and war.
A Tactical PSYOP Team with a solid TC, ATL, and PSYOP Spec will have loads of work to do. Especially if you are actually spread out with supported units (e.g. INF BN, SF ODA, etc.).
Just because HOA is a slow pace mission for PSYOP does not mean that their are no other operations. Heck, PSYOP is in Iraq right now training their counterparts.
1SG, as you know, there is so much more to PSYOP than just handing out paper and operating a speaker. It is useful, especially when used with CA and SF, hence 1st SOCOM, the creation of USACAPOC (originally the reserve Speical Operations Command), and now 1st SFC which has AD PSYOP and AD CA units under it.
I would tell a potential recruit, if you want to truly help people by providing them with medical, food, and housing, go CA. If you want to build rapport, persuade, change, and influence, then go PSYOP.
(7)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
1LT (Join to see), I have often said that the mission to influence behavior and affect the human terrain is one that CA, Psyops, and to a lesser extent Public Affairs shares. The biggest difference is the means employed. CA does it through interpersonal contact, generally through spheres of influence (key leaders guide the behavior of their followers). PO generally does it through media, broadcast and printed. PA does it exclusively through mass media, and stays on the "white" side of IO.
I am fully aware that PO has a valuable doctrinal job. What I am saying in brief above and I can at length backed by a boatload of operational experience is that PO is not used to it's potential, and in some respects not at all. The Korea example stands out as an exception - I would point out that the DPRK was pissed enough at the resumption (after a 12 year suspension) of loudspeaker broadcasts at the DMZ to mobilize their submarine fleet and exchange artillery fire with the South. Not exactly the desired effect.
What I say above about Embassies shunning PO operations even in places where there is obvious opportunity is not unique to Africa. It seems to be a coordinated policy. I can't prove it, but that many Ambassadors on the same page indicates a DoS directive. If that is the case, it will take a conflict to get PO operations going again.
More disturbing to me is the attitude I have encountered in the PO community. They will huff and puff about how important they are, but when it comes to execution they often fall into one of two traps: they think they are SF or they throw up their hands in frustration and go native. Officers are particularly content to do little or nothing.
Over in the CA community, the trap has been the notion that we are the Peace Corps (we definitely are not), living to build stuff and do HA, or we are a bunch of "assessors". Neither are true about us either. Fortunately, that attitude has been weeded or promoted out of the tactical level. Unfortunately, the AC still thinks we are the HA/ contracting department.
Thing is, the "mission", while ever evolving, demands a certain brand of thinking and approach. Too many mid-level people saw PO doing not much. You see it most clearly when people do their capabilities brief. Invariably, the Brigade Commander will ask some variation of what can you do for me. PO guy says, "I can make this media, run a RIAB, do loudspeaker ops..."
BCO guy puts them on staff.
CA guy says I can meet with SOIs, identify issues in the HT, coordinate with NGOs...
BCO guy thinks, "this is bunch of stuff I didn't want to deal with", and directs maneuver units to support CA activities. They particularly like that we are there to prepare for and conduct and/or support their KLEs.
Both CA and PO have a strong element of their mission that is staff in nature. Near universally, both CA and PO want to be in the field instead. The difference at the operational level is PO tends to get stuck there, and CA tends to not do that component enough.
I am fully aware that PO has a valuable doctrinal job. What I am saying in brief above and I can at length backed by a boatload of operational experience is that PO is not used to it's potential, and in some respects not at all. The Korea example stands out as an exception - I would point out that the DPRK was pissed enough at the resumption (after a 12 year suspension) of loudspeaker broadcasts at the DMZ to mobilize their submarine fleet and exchange artillery fire with the South. Not exactly the desired effect.
What I say above about Embassies shunning PO operations even in places where there is obvious opportunity is not unique to Africa. It seems to be a coordinated policy. I can't prove it, but that many Ambassadors on the same page indicates a DoS directive. If that is the case, it will take a conflict to get PO operations going again.
More disturbing to me is the attitude I have encountered in the PO community. They will huff and puff about how important they are, but when it comes to execution they often fall into one of two traps: they think they are SF or they throw up their hands in frustration and go native. Officers are particularly content to do little or nothing.
Over in the CA community, the trap has been the notion that we are the Peace Corps (we definitely are not), living to build stuff and do HA, or we are a bunch of "assessors". Neither are true about us either. Fortunately, that attitude has been weeded or promoted out of the tactical level. Unfortunately, the AC still thinks we are the HA/ contracting department.
Thing is, the "mission", while ever evolving, demands a certain brand of thinking and approach. Too many mid-level people saw PO doing not much. You see it most clearly when people do their capabilities brief. Invariably, the Brigade Commander will ask some variation of what can you do for me. PO guy says, "I can make this media, run a RIAB, do loudspeaker ops..."
BCO guy puts them on staff.
CA guy says I can meet with SOIs, identify issues in the HT, coordinate with NGOs...
BCO guy thinks, "this is bunch of stuff I didn't want to deal with", and directs maneuver units to support CA activities. They particularly like that we are there to prepare for and conduct and/or support their KLEs.
Both CA and PO have a strong element of their mission that is staff in nature. Near universally, both CA and PO want to be in the field instead. The difference at the operational level is PO tends to get stuck there, and CA tends to not do that component enough.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
1SG,
The only thing I will agree with you on is that MIST have far too many limitations and are probably a lot less valuable than CAT-A in regional affairs. However, a well trained and experience tactical PSYOP team is far more useful at using non-kinetic means to produce kinetic effects. There is a lot shit people don't see or hear about for obvious reasons, all legally under special programs. Let just say that if done right, hostilely begin killing eachother and themselves for various reason. As far as the cool guy thing and trying to be SF, both PSYOP and CA guys due it. I hate it but it happens all the time. For example, I watch a CAT-A CDR tell the SOTF CDR that they were not mission ready because they didn't have SCARs like the SEAL TMs, he was politely told to F off.
The only thing I will agree with you on is that MIST have far too many limitations and are probably a lot less valuable than CAT-A in regional affairs. However, a well trained and experience tactical PSYOP team is far more useful at using non-kinetic means to produce kinetic effects. There is a lot shit people don't see or hear about for obvious reasons, all legally under special programs. Let just say that if done right, hostilely begin killing eachother and themselves for various reason. As far as the cool guy thing and trying to be SF, both PSYOP and CA guys due it. I hate it but it happens all the time. For example, I watch a CAT-A CDR tell the SOTF CDR that they were not mission ready because they didn't have SCARs like the SEAL TMs, he was politely told to F off.
(1)
(0)
8
8
0
PFC, don't let all of the "negatives" about PSYOP (and see there is no S on the end) from people that "think" they know our MOS. I'm currently a 37 and i am having the time of my life. What these people fail to inform you is that PSYOP mostly work in embassies throughout the world, yes on 3-4 man teams but you have very little "oversight" from the higher command you play by big boy rules. On the other hand, our 38 counter parts fail to inform you of how crappy they get treated by Q-course cadre, and how only 1 (ONE) of their brigades are Special Operations capable, the others support Big Army and play by Big Army rules…yeah sucks I know. Go PSYOP, all our active duty units are special operations qualified, we get a lot of cool schools from gryphon group, sapper, ranger, sniper, air assault, pathfinder, and if you're lucky even HALO. Message me if you have questions.
(8)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
Sgt, could you possibly tell me a bit more about Psyop? I am in the process of completing my packet and wanted to know more about it. How is the selection process and what exactly is the mission set for Psyop? Could you also tell me about tactical psyop? It would help greatly to hear from someone who is actually 37f currently. Thank you in advance Sgt.
(1)
(0)
CW2 (Join to see)
What exactly would you like to know? The selection process isn’t easy. It is something you must train for. Ruck, run, and ruck some more, tighten up your writing skills and read some books on communication. Tactical PSYOP is exactly what you think it is.
What else did you want to know?
What else did you want to know?
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google