# Army Chief of Staff:  "Prevent, Shape, Win."



## Marauder06 (Dec 21, 2011)

http://www.army.mil/article/71030/CSA_Editorial__Prevent__shape__win/



> WASHINGTON (Dec. 16, 2011) -- There is much discussion in the halls of the Pentagon these days about the role of the Army, and I'd like to share with you my thoughts on the issue.
> 
> Without question, 10 years of war and today's austere economic environment will have a profound impact on our Army. But to put it simply: in these uncertain times -- perhaps especially in these uncertain times -- the Army is central to our nation's defense.
> 
> ...


----------



## AWP (Dec 21, 2011)

"Shape" - Did he just give Big Army the FID mission?


----------



## Viper1 (Dec 21, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> "Shape" - Did he just give Big Army the FID mission?


 At initial glance, I don't think so.  When I read his words I immediately thought of more exercises like Cobra Gold, Balikatan, foreign school exchanges at the officer and NCO ranks, etc.


----------



## AWP (Dec 21, 2011)

Viper1 said:


> At initial glance, I don't think so. When I read his words I immediately thought of more exercises like Cobra Gold, Balikatan, foreign school exchanges at the officer and NCO ranks, etc.


 
I hope so. I hope all of the DA work done by ODAs over the last 10 years and the ETT mission performed by conventional units hasn't "muddied the waters" with regard to who does what.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Dec 21, 2011)

Shape is just a generic mission verb, what are you talking about Free?


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Dec 22, 2011)

While I believe these are the same three roles that have been mentioned for years, it would be nice if the higher ups realized it's not just the economic issues impacting the Army in modern times.  Two major issues that keep the Army from fulfilling their roles as well as they can are politics and propaganda.

Politics/politicians (especially those without any time in uniform) have been making/forcing bad decisions for a long time.  I believe it is an issue with civilians running the military in general.  Most politicians these days don't believe in annihilating the enemy.  That's really the only way to get them to surrender or obtain a complete victory (see the third role, which is the most important because it helps lay the foundation for "prevent" and "shape").

As for propaganda...  we suck at it.  We, as a nation, don't understand how to be proactive with it or how to react to propaganda attacks against us.  I think we need to take more focus away from social networking and put it into Psyops.  Losing a propaganda war takes away from our credibility, which in turn makes each of the three roles that much more difficult to accomplish.

I agree with the three roles, but there are more factors than just the economic conditions and a battle weary military that affect the Army's ability to fulfill their roles.  Just my thoughts on the subject. 

FF - I believe "shape" in this sense refers to joint training exercises, working together on multinational bases, and possibly allied weapons & technology buying/selling/trading.  I am sure FID also plays a role here, especially since that is an SF mission and SF is part of the Army, but I agree with others that it is meant in more general terms here.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 22, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> I hope so. I hope all of the DA work done by ODAs over the last 10 years and the ETT mission performed by conventional units hasn't "muddied the waters" with regard to who does what.



All the DA was done by with and through PN forces. Last time I checked there were not a whole lot of ODAs doing unilateral ops.


----------



## AWP (Dec 22, 2011)

> helping partners build the capacity to defend themselves


 
The above is part of the "Shape" portion of his statement.

I could be wrong, probably am, I probably read too much into it.


----------



## moobob (Dec 22, 2011)

Big Army thinks it can do everything SF can do. If that wasn't the case, they'd be out of a job in places like Afghanistan.


----------



## moobob (Dec 22, 2011)

Freefalling said:


> The above is part of the "Shape" portion of his statement.
> 
> I could be wrong, probably am, I probably read too much into it.


 
No, you're not wrong.


----------



## surgicalcric (Dec 22, 2011)

moobob said:


> Big Army thinks it can do everything SF can do. If that wasn't the case, they'd be out of a job in places like Afghanistan.


 
They would never have had a job (Command) had they (CF) a clue about their capabilities, and/or lack thereof.  Fact is they wanted to be relevant and get their guys into the war and did what they had to to do so.  Now they cant get themselves out without saying they were wrong...


----------



## moobob (Dec 22, 2011)

Square peg, round hole. We already had a round peg in place.

I hate seeing young Americans dying doing what amounts to needlessly trolling for IEDs. Or, seeing Big Army pay $3K for a well project that you or I know costs maybe $600. All due to ignorance of their environment and being totally out of their element.

Outside of aviation assets, there was never a need for conventional units in any significant numbers, and they honestly do more harm than good. It goes beyond the inability to admit they were wrong. They are so clueless that they do not realize they are wrong.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Dec 22, 2011)

OK, I'm seeing it a lot different to some of you guys then.

I see a lot of that shape taking place via joint exercises with AUSCANZUKUS nations and the others to help develop the capacity to work together well in peacetime so we can then do that in the next war.  You guys do some weird shit and knowing it before we get boots on the ground with you is a hell of a lot less painless then finding it out the hard way.

I understand what SF does but to be honest if I was for example Australia, just brought a Regiment of M1A1 Abrams and you sent an A Team over to train me how to use them I'd be pretty pissed.  However if you sent over a Maj and a couple of SNCOs from 1st Armd I'd then be pretty stoked.  I already know the TTPs for employment of armour (please note correct spelling of the word) and I'm looking for are guys that have crewed them to help me with the idiosyncrasies of the vehicle.

Isn't that shaping?


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 22, 2011)

I thought SF was part of big Army, so the shaping (FID, et al) performed by SF was still part of the Army Mission.  I also know there is a lot of FID that can be done by non-SF units.  Logistics, IPB, Staffing etc.


----------



## AWP (Dec 22, 2011)

Mac_NZ said:


> OK, I'm seeing it a lot different to some of you guys then.
> 
> I see a lot of that shape taking place via joint exercises with AUSCANZUKUS nations and the others to help develop the capacity to work together well in peacetime so we can then do that in the next war. You guys do some weird shit and knowing it before we get boots on the ground with you is a hell of a lot less painless then finding it out the hard way.
> 
> ...


 
This example I agree with, however I've watched Big Army in Afghanistan jump into training Afghans on many levels. The Air force has a dedicated FID/ UW squadron, but I doubt they are the only ones training the Afghan Air Force. The conventional side has muscled into roles it isn't prepared (read: trained) for.

Now, I understand the scope of the missions are much greater than what our 7 Groups and one AF squadron can perform and I understand the expediency of placing conventional forces into selected roles. In many cases however, they receive little to no training and we aren't putting seasoned E-6's and E-7's with them, I've seen SPC 4's training Afghans. We aren't even providing our trainers with the benefit of a mini Q Course as far as some of the blocks of instruction, we're grabbing guys, maybe giving them a few classes and some pointee-talkee cards, and putting them on a plane.

I've overheard numerous officers and NCOs make light of the fact that they are doing SF's mission so SF can't be that hard. "If I can train Afghans then what is SF doing?"

Given the thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines who have trained Afghan and Iraqi forces, I don't think it unreasonable to believe that a "What does SF do for me?" bias is creeping into the upper ranks, or at least it will over time.

I tend to see the worst in people, I understand that, so maybe I'm wrong regarding the CSA's intent. I'd like to think that common sense and reason will prevail and commanders won't find themselves encroaching upon one of SF's core tasks, but I'm not optimistic. I know we can "What if" ourselves to death, but I don't think the massive amount of troops seen in Afghanistan would be necessary had we allowed this to be a SOF environment. We spread ourselves very thin and then used the maxim that quantity has a quality all its own when it came to Afghanistan and my concern is that Big Army's takeaway from the GWOT is "We can train armies, that's what we do."


----------



## surgicalcric (Dec 22, 2011)

CF, when tasked, deploys to train HN personnel, period. SF, when tasked, deploys to do X through FID. There are more differences than similarities in the two but we cannot delve into them without violating aspects of mission security.

SOWT: You are spot on about the shaping aspects of SF's mission. It is part of the Army's mission but only as it applies to SF.



			
				FF said:
			
		

> ...I've overheard numerous officers and NCOs make light of the fact that they are doing SF's mission so SF can't be that hard. "If I can train Afghans then what is SF doing?"


 
What they dont get is what I stated above.  They see that they are doing the job of a drill sergeant but dont have knowledge of everything else SF does concurrent to the training.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 22, 2011)

surgicalcric said:


> CF, when tasked, deploys to train HN personnel, period. SF, when tasked, deploys to do X through FID. There are more differences than similarities in the two but we cannot delve into them without violating aspects of mission security.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, what he said...


----------



## Crusader74 (Dec 23, 2011)

Is it not a waste on resourses for an ODA to carry out FID? Should  conventional forces not carry out that task or train indigenous Units to carry out said task?


----------



## pardus (Dec 23, 2011)

Mac_NZ said:


> OK, I'm seeing it a lot different to some of you guys then.
> 
> I see a lot of that shape taking place via joint exercises with AUSCANZUKUS nations and the others to help develop the capacity to work together well in peacetime so we can then do that in the next war. You guys do some weird shit and knowing it before we get boots on the ground with you is a hell of a lot less painless then finding it out the hard way.
> 
> ...


 


Irish said:


> Is it not a waste on resourses for an ODA to carry out FID? Should conventional forces not carry out that task or train indigenous Units to carry out said task?


 
Irish, I can't speak for your training as I haven't with with your Army or your guys, but as you train with the Brits I'm going to assume you are in line with other Commonwealth Armies.
I've worked with Soldiers from the the following armies, Kiwi, Aussie, Brit, South African and American.

The conventional US Army soldier is very poorly trained compared to the Commonwealth troops, and I'm being PC.

Mac, I'll give you a specific and personal example to bring my point home.
Danny B and I meet up in Washington DC while he was attending the US Army Command Sargent Major's (RSM's)  course.
We were drinking with an Aussie RSM who was being posted to the US Army CSM course as an instructor (he was pissed beyond belief over it!).
They told me the CSM course instructors were the worse they'd ever encountered. The course content was pretty pathetic. Danny told me some of the content of the course was the same material taught in the NZ Army JNCO's course!
They were honestly shocked.

They did say that the 82nd and 1o1st guys were pretty good and they were both impressed at the standard of fitness with all the US guys which honestly exceeded "ours".

Training in the US Army has been hard for me as I have to comply with a bunch of BS rules and creeds and dumb myself down to the point where I'm just a fucking monkey in a uniform.
If the US didn't have a huge, technological Military force it would have nothing.
I came to a realization during some training a while back that my skill as a soldier was now meaningless. The way the US Army conducts itself, my survival is nothing more than pure luck. Very sobering, Fucking ridiculous.


----------



## Crusader74 (Dec 23, 2011)

pardus said:


> Irish, I can't speak for your training as I haven't with with your Army or your guys, but as you train with the Brits I'm going to assume you are in line with other Commonwealth Armies.
> I've worked with Soldiers from the the following armies, Kiwi, Aussie, Brit, South African and American.
> 
> The conventional US Army soldier is very poorly trained compared to the Commonwealth troops, and I'm being PC.
> ...


 

We have to cross-train on various MOS's due to our small size...It wouldn't be uncommon for a Recce qual'd guys to be Snipers or Cooks being HGV(heavy goods vehicle) qual'd.. a Medic being a signaller and so on...

I assumed the US cross-trained with the Brits/AUS/NZ and took on TTP's that fitted into their training doctrine..


----------



## pardus (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish said:


> I assumed the US cross-trained with the Brits/AUS/NZ and took on TTP's that fitted into their trainnig doctrine..


 
People do cross train but you must understand that a lot of "training" here is rudimentary. "Watch me do this once. Got it? Now you are an instructor"   I shit you not!


----------



## Crusader74 (Dec 23, 2011)

pardus said:


> People do cross train but you must understand that a lot of "training" here is rudimentary. "Watch me do this once. Got it? Now you are an instructor"  I shit you not!


----------



## pardus (Dec 23, 2011)

Irish said:


>


 
Yup, I was shocked beyond belief when I first encountered it.

In the Kiwi Army, map folding was a formal, 40 minute lesson, as was left turn, right turn, etc... etc...

Every Kiwi JNCO was a drill/general instructor.

I will say though that my medical training has been very good. Caveat, I have not had Med training from another Army.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 23, 2011)

What hasn't been said is the Conventional Guys/Gals can do a FID mission because an ODA laid the groundwork.  That's why SF is so valuable.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 24, 2011)

CF will always be involved in FID, as they always have been. My only experience with FID was the training, leading and advising of the ING during 2004-2005 and some work I did with the Joint Military Skills Center. From that experience I found several aspects that hindered my ability to be effective in training foreign soldiers (language, culture awareness and knowledge, and most of all patients). These are all aspects that are very important for teaching soldiers from other nations and are skills a lot of the NCO’s in the CF do not possess. Another big issue is being skillful in teaching, which requires expert knowledge and the ability to transfer that knowledge to other effectively. Again this is something a majority of the CF NCO’s are lacking, IMHO.

However, SF focuses on the skills sets, and I believe that makes them more qualified and effective in the FID mission. That doesn’t mean that CF should not be involved in FID or that they cannot conduct FID missions. It means that if CF is going to continue in conducting FID, then they should be more selective of the personnel they use and they should develop those individuals in the skills needed to be successful in that mission. Does that mean they need to go through SFAS and the Q course to do FID? No, but I think SF could really be helpful in developing a course for CF soldiers who will be conducting FID.

Just my $0.02


----------



## pardus (Dec 24, 2011)

How about just training all CF to a higher standard like the commonwealth does?

I don't want to hear "well the US Army is too big to do that." Because that's a bullshit cop out.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 24, 2011)

pardus said:


> How about just training all CF to a higher standard like the commonwealth does?
> 
> I don't want to hear "well the US Army is too big to do that." Because that's a bullshit cop out.


 
I agree that the Army should be trained to higher standard, and I also agree with copout bullshit. I also know that there are very highly trained soldiers throughout the Army and who do take their job seriously. Remember that just because it may suck where you are right now, it doesn’t suck everywhere. Also I would not say that the “commonwealth” soldiers are better trained then ours, our soldiers are very well trained, it could be better and should be better, but even so, we do have a well trained Army (even in our shitty ranks within the Army).


----------



## pardus (Dec 24, 2011)

I know there are very well trained soldiers in the US Military, I'm not including SOCOM in my comments, they are top notch.
My unit/s and component are irrelevant to the point i'm making. This has nothing to do with "sucking" I'm simply stating a fact. I've trained under AD instructors several times, I see orders and doctrine from big Army. This is not a "Guard sucks" thing, this is a statement on the US Army as a whole.

How do you know Commonwealth Soldiers are not better trained?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 24, 2011)

pardus said:


> How do you know Commonwealth Soldiers are not better trained?


 
Because I have worked with them (Aussies, Brits and Scotts), a few of their TTP's and lingo is different, but pretty well the same skill levels from what I could tell.


----------



## pardus (Dec 24, 2011)

Fair enough, good to hear. However my point still stands, training standards are vastly different.


----------



## moobob (Dec 24, 2011)

From talking to a Kiwi about the training their infantrymen receive... it sounds like a much better way of doing things. This is across the board.

I wouldn't say that saying we couldn't train to their standard is a copout. New Zealand's entire army is the equivalent of two or less U.S. Army brigades.

However, we can do a lot better....


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 24, 2011)

There are things ODAs due that CF forces can't in relation to FID. I can't say
More than that, however I can say that CF is not as prepared as they think they are for that task.


----------



## Brill (Dec 24, 2011)

pardus said:


> How about just training all CF to a higher standard like the commonwealth does?


 
No f'ing way.  This is not a dig but a shared reality statement: Joe cannot handle the "big boy rules" of SOF.  When is the last time there was a report of a SOF element that went on a killing spree and covering it up?  Killing one of their own and claiming he was attacked because he was a minority?  Selling secrets or passing them to an asshole just to make a statement?

Joe is just a different animal with different expecations and norms (I'm not talking about wearing non-issue kit, non-standard uniforms, long hair, etc.).  To drive the point home, how many CF guys work with a SOF unit and desire to actually join SOF?  Conversely, how many SOF guys DESIRE to return to CF units?


From  FM 34-52 ch 9:



> *FOREIGN INTERNAL DEFENSE*
> 
> FID encompasses those actions taken by civilian and military agencies of one government in any program taken by another government to preclude or defeat insurgency. Insurgencies cannot be overcome by military measures alone but by military support to national programs.
> US Army forces operate in concert with other services, both US and host nation and with other US Government agencies. Operations are conducted in support of plans developed by the host nation and the US Government.
> ...


 
Sure sounds like a SF mission to me. 



JAB said:


> CF will always be involved in FID, as they always have been.


 
Was CF involved in LATAM like SF was in the 80's?  How many CF FID missions went to Central Asia?  When did CF deploy to Georgia to train the Georgian army before the Russian invasion?  I've spent alot of time at various embassies all over the world and the Office of Defense Cooperation always worked with SOF elements and I never knew of any deployments to train HN forces by CF.

FID is part of UW and CF doesn't do UW well.

Back to the thread, "Prevent, Shape, Win" is soft pansy-like PC bullshi'ite that just smells of Cold War doctrine (perhaps intended for the Chinese Army leadership).  The "prevent" statement is total garbage in that if the Army is not even able to convince a ragtag bunch of boy fuckers that it is unwise to engage, then who the hell can we convince?  The Nepalese Army?  Gimme a break.  Prevention is scaring the shit out of your enemy by snatching their leaders in the middle of the night, killing those that cannot be grabbed, and striking fear into their hearts so they are absolutely afraid to even leave their safe havens because they KNOW they will die.

Shape...been over that

Win?  Give me a freakin' break.  This current admin is not interested in winning any wars...especially against Islamic nations.  <--yes, I f'ing said that!  His campaign pleadge was to pull-out of Iraq and we are scheduled to draw down in AF.  Yep, victory strategy, for world powers like France.


----------



## surgicalcric (Dec 24, 2011)

cback0220 said:


> There are things ODAs due that CF forces can't in relation to FID. I can't say
> More than that, however I can say that CF is not as prepared as they think they are for that task.


 
I could swear I heard someone say that before...  lol


----------



## reed11b (Dec 24, 2011)

pardus said:


> How about just training all CF to a higher standard like the commonwealth does?
> 
> I don't want to hear "well the US Army is too big to do that." Because that's a bullshit cop out.


One of the challenges that  the big Army has is that it is constantly rotating personnel between units and trains individuals not units. If the Army switched to a rotational readiness plan and reduced PCS moves to a minimum they could train beyond the basics and train _units_ up to standard. Army personel command is broken, and until that gets fixed, training and readiness will always be handicapped.


----------



## pardus (Dec 24, 2011)

I just want to put it out there that I don't think the NZ Army is perfect by any means. I could write a book about fucked up shit there.
I was just talking about one issue that Ive had personal experience with.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 25, 2011)

lindy said:


> From FM 34-52 ch 9:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I pretty well agree with you on the aspects on Pvt Joe Snuffy not being a good fit for FID, and for the most part most CF who have been involved in FID have been SrNCO’s and Officers. I still think that a program could be created (again maybe by SF) to assist in preparing those SrNCO/Officers to conduct FID more effectively and more in line with how SF is doing it.

And totally agree on the last portion of your post regarding the “PC bullshit” etc…


----------



## policemedic (Dec 25, 2011)

pardus said:


> I know there are very well trained soldiers in the US Military, I'm not including SOCOM in my comments, they are top notch.
> My unit/s and component are irrelevant to the point i'm making. This has nothing to do with "sucking" I'm simply stating a fact. I've trained under AD instructors several times, I see orders and doctrine from big Army. This is not a "Guard sucks" thing, this is a statement on the US Army as a whole.


 
No argument re: USSOCOM.

But having served RA/USAR/ARNG, I can say there is a world of difference between USAR/ARNG and the regular Army in terms of training and skill level.  I do admit there are particular CMFs where RC/NG guys are better...MPs who are civilian cops and medics who are civilian paramedics or flight medics (proven better, by the way) are better than many AD guys.  Generally speaking though, AD guys are much more skilled than their RC counterparts by virtue of being full-time and I think it is possible to apply what is generally known as 'rater bias' when you try to extrapolate NG/RC experience to the AD force.

I find it interesting you give high marks to the 68W course at Fort Sam.  I never took it-11B + NREMT-P equalled 68W for me-but I had to retrain every medic in my battalion in many areas.  I truly wonder what other nations do in terms of combat medic training.



pardus said:


> How do you know Commonwealth Soldiers are not better trained?


 
However, I think you are uniquely qualified to judge the relative skill levels of the soldiers you've served with in various armies.  I completely respect your opinion in this area and appreciate your insights.  I think we're lucky you're willing to share the breadth of your experience.


----------



## moobob (Dec 25, 2011)

JAB said:


> I pretty well agree with you on the aspects on Pvt Joe Snuffy not being a good fit for FID, and for the most part most CF who have been involved in FID have been SrNCO’s and Officers. I still think that a program could be created (again maybe by SF) to assist in preparing those SrNCO/Officers to conduct FID more effectively and more in line with how SF is doing it.
> 
> And totally agree on the last portion of your post regarding the “PC bullshit” etc…


 
JAB, refer back to when surgicalcric said "CF, when tasked, deploys to train HN personnel, period. SF, when tasked, deploys to do X through FID. There are more differences than similarities in the two but we cannot delve into them without violating aspects of mission security."

If you don't know what he is referring to, you don't need to know. However, saying CF can perform the "SF mission" is laughable. This mindset is due to ignorance (and some professional jealousy) on behalf of senior CF personnel.

Yes, CF can train foreign troops. Teaching BRM and small unit tactics to indig troops can be challenging, but most competent soldiers can do it. There are other things at work, and getting into the mindset that big Army can do what SF can do is the wrong way to think. Unfortunately, very few people in the CF food chain need to be privy to why that is, so this mindset continues to permeate.


----------



## surgicalcric (Dec 25, 2011)

JAB said:
			
		

> ...It was my understanding (and I don’t know much about it at all) that UW was the building of an insurgency force to over throw an oppressive government, not to build a government’s strength and security? How is FID a part of UW? I mean I get that FID is one of SF’s core missions, just like UW. But I don’t see how the two are part of each other, more so the exact opposite, at least I would have thought.


 
J:

Let me see if I can clear some of the mud from the water here without getting too deep into the definitions of each.

UW is about setting the stage for and recruiting, training, assisting and advising indigenous personnel to overthrow a government or occupying power through an insurgency.  Whereas FID, in part, is conducted to assist in preventing an insurgency from overthrowing a government and to improve that government's ability to defend themselves again outside enemies as well.  

If you look at them in this light you will see that UW and FID are opposite sides of the same COIN (counterinsurgency).  You must understand and be capable of applying each to be truly effective at the other. This is one of the reasons we say there is more to FID than simply training LBG (lil brown guys) to complete a task to a standard given a set of conditions.  SF does not like Big Army's definition of FID for this reason.  

Hope this helps.

Crip


----------



## Brill (Dec 25, 2011)

> FID is part of UW and CF doesn't do UW well.
> 
> It was my understanding (and I don’t know much about it at all) that UW was the building of an insurgency force to over throw an oppressive government, not to build a government’s strength and security? How is FID a part of UW? I mean I get that FID is one of SF’s core missions, just like UW. But I don’t see how the two are part of each other, more so the exact opposite, at least I would have thought.


 
It appears that I mistated UW and should have written Irregular Warfare (IW), an overly broad idea.

Jab,
One could argue that FID vs UW could be simplified by perspective. Sep 01, SOF began to advise Northern Alliance forces (viewed by the Afghan government as hostile) and later began to advise ANA (viewed by Afghan government as friendly). I suppose the definition is dependent upon how the invitation to the party is written, just as you state above.

I consider a JCET to be FID whereas an exchange (i.e. CF unit going to build schools in an African country or teach marksmanship) is not. I suppose the bottom line is that EVERY SF soldier is a NCO teacher fluent in a foreign language and capable of living (thriving) in almost unthinkable conditions AND teaching basic soldiering to any fighter worldwide.

The same cannot be said for all CF NCOs. I think we're saying the same thing just differently.  Another aspect (cannot remember the source) is that in FID, the SOF does the heavy lifting but HN government gets the credit.



> CF will always be involved in FID, as they always have been. My only experience with FID was the training, leading and advising of the ING during 2004-2005 and some work I did with the Joint Military Skills Center. From that experience I found several aspects that hindered my ability to be effective in training foreign soldiers (language, culture awareness and knowledge, and most of all patients). These are all aspects that are very important for teaching soldiers from other nations and are skills a lot of the NCO’s in the CF do not possess. Another big issue is being skillful in teaching, which requires expert knowledge and the ability to transfer that knowledge to other effectively. Again this is something a majority of the CF NCO’s are lacking, IMHO.​​However, SF focuses on the skills sets, and I believe that makes them more qualified and effective in the FID mission. That doesn’t mean that CF should not be involved in FID or that they cannot conduct FID missions. It means that if CF is going to continue in conducting FID, then they should be more selective of the personnel they use and they should develop those individuals in the skills needed to be successful in that mission. Does that mean they need to go through SFAS and the Q course to do FID? No, but I think SF could really be helpful in developing a course for CF soldiers who will be conducting FID.​​Just my $0.02​


----------



## Brill (Dec 25, 2011)

Here is an article that appears to, in my opinion, oversimply FID.  Interesting viewpoint.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA470867


----------



## Mac_NZ (Dec 25, 2011)

For us FID being conducted by CF is the norm.  When a "friendly nation" needs trainers we send in some SNCOs and a Maj from the Combat School or one of the Battalions.  Now if its a bunch of Ibans in the middle of nowhere to be trained for an insurgency we send in the SAS because thats what they do.  Also we only have the SAS/Cdos and they are busy with other stuff, someone else has to fill that gap.

To get to SNCO with us you normally need to be one hell of an instructor and do time at one of the schools or training establishments.  The joy of being small is you can demand that.  In terms of differences in training I'm not going to go there because it becomes a pissing contest but our career progression is a lot different to the US Army.  There is a lot of boxes to tick before anyone will let you loose with a rifle section.  This doesn't mean we always get it right but it does give us a very good idea of what we are getting in a commander.  Our Section Commanders course (E5) is very similar to the patrolling phase of Ranger school and the tempo is almost on par.  We give a bit more time for mission analysis to be conducted because we emphasise planning and MAP.  Theres also JNCO course before you get there which is more about drill in my eyes but brings even our Pogues up to the point where they can lead a section attack.

Platoon commanders is the same and is a requirement for all our NCOs to go through and they are tested the same as our Lts are.

As to Joe Snuffy not being trusted to work outside the box, to me thats abysmal.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 26, 2011)

moobob said:


> JAB, refer back to when surgicalcric said "CF, when tasked, deploys to train HN personnel, period. SF, when tasked, deploys to do X through FID. There are more differences than similarities in the two but we cannot delve into them without violating aspects of mission security."
> 
> If you don't know what he is referring to, you don't need to know. However, saying CF can perform the "SF mission" is laughable. This mindset is due to ignorance (and some professional jealousy) on behalf of senior CF personnel.
> 
> Yes, CF can train foreign troops. Teaching BRM and small unit tactics to indig troops can be challenging, but most competent soldiers can do it. There are other things at work, and getting into the mindset that big Army can do what SF can do is the wrong way to think. Unfortunately, very few people in the CF food chain need to be privy to why that is, so this mindset continues to permeate.


 

I get that there is overt and covert aspects to Foreign Internal Defense (FID), but I think some of you are trying to talk it up a bit much. FID is a part of a National Assistance Program (NA) as well as Humanitarian and Civic Assistance (HCA), and Security Assistance (SA). All three are applied as part of a NA program and are normally under “peace time” circumstances (but can also be conducted by combat forces during ongoing combat operations, such as in Iraq & Afghanistan). NA programs can either be overt with large scale CIV & MIL aid, large media coverage in the aspect of “hey world we are helping this country”. Or NA programs can be more covert (not going to get into details, but most of you know what I am talking about), which would fall into the SOF side of the house. NA programs are not simply a MIL mission, they are not simply SOF or CF, they are a combination of all, or sometimes just one or two, etc.

FID = major military to military advisory effort under National Assistance.
Defined by the US Joint Military as: FID is “participation by civilian and military agencies of a government in any of the action programs taken by another government or other designated organization to free and protect its society from subversion, lawlessness, and insurgency.”

SA=include all the same aspects of FID, but also include Foreign Military Sales (FMS), Foreign Military Financing Program (FMFP), and the International Military Education and Training (IMET).The key difference between SA and FID, is that SA cannot involve actual combat.

HCA=is more of the large scale operation that include cross training, civic stability operation and deal primarily with host nations with a pre-developed military, security forces, civil authorities. But this type of assistances is normally to build national friendships or to assist during a time of national crises (i.e. such as seen in Haiti and most recently in Japan).

All three are aspects of National Assistance (NA) and all three can and are conducted by SOF and CF. SOF obviously has FID as one of their core tasks, there for they are better trained in such and have better success in such. However, CF has been involved in FID operation (along with all types of NA programs) for well over 150+ years. Stating that FID is only a SF mission or that CF cannot conduct FID is simply ignorant. There are several SOF units (PSY/CA, all types of MI, and logistical units) that have FID in their core tasks, not just SF. There are plenty of historical examples of CF conducting FID operations (and successfully).

Again, I believe SOF (primarily SF) is better for the FID mission. However, stating that CF will not be involved, that they have not been involved, or that they should not be involved in the future, is simply retarded IMHO. We obviously know that CF has conducted FID, that they are currently conducting FID and that FID will be a mission that SOF and CF will share in the future…


----------



## moobob (Dec 26, 2011)

Conventional soldiers on the ground level can successfully train indig forces on military topics. What makes CF not fit is at the senior leadership levels.

Big Army sucks at COIN, and always will. Small successes on the ground by some squad leader or PL that kinda "gets it" are going to be negated by overarching strategy at higher levels that are drawn up by people that don't understand their environment. Successes in Iraq that have more to do with the Iraqi people being sick of their neighbors dying than anything the US Army thought of have convinced CF that it can do the same in Afghanistan (and anywhere in general). Couldn't be farther from the truth. 2014, when most people will withdraw from Afghanistan, is a day I am looking forward to.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 26, 2011)

moobob said:


> Conventional soldiers on the ground level can successfully train indig forces on military topics. What makes CF not fit is at the senior leadership levels.
> 
> Big Army sucks at COIN, and always will. Small successes on the ground by some squad leader or PL that kinda "gets it" are going to be negated by overarching strategy at higher levels that are drawn up by people that don't understand their environment. Successes in Iraq that have more to do with the Iraqi people being sick of their neighbors dying than anything the US Army thought of have convinced CF that it can do the same in Afghanistan (and anywhere in general). Couldn't be farther from the truth. 2014, when most people will withdraw from Afghanistan, is a day I am looking forward to.


 
Yeah I agree with you here, but I also think that having a dedicated program to teach FID & COIN to leaders at al level would make future operations better than what have been doing.


----------

