USAID Considering Rapid Expeditionary Development Teams

[policemedic]

USAID mulls proposal to train aid workers as special forces

It's an interesting concept, but it will require careful vetting of team members and buy-in from the SOF units they embed with.

 

[AWP]

If only the Army had a SOF-affiliated unit or two to engage in this sort of "civil affairs" work...

 

[policemedic]

Precisely. Y'know, people with the same skill sets, SOCM trained medics.....

We're reinventing the wheel, methinks.

 

[AWP]

We're reinventing the wheel, methinks.

Worse than that, we're doing it about 15 years too late. Didn't State have some version of this for their mission, nevermind that State screwed the GWOT pooch across the globe?

For all of our talk about training as you fight, innovation, independent thinking, etc., our military and government are collections of people 20 years behind the times, if not more. We haven't even discussed little fiefdoms that have cost us hundreds of billions because we won't make hard choices and cuts where needed. We throw money and people at problems, not solutions.

 

[Gunz]

50 years too late. It would be helpful for teams working in enemy-contested, remote village/ tribal areas to have some official guidance and support for civic affairs and local politics.

But USAID Red Teams would have to have basic infantry skills at the least. If you're hit hard, there is no place on a small COIN team for people who can't pull a trigger or use comm.

 

[Johca]

This type of USAID capability subject is one that has popped up in news articles at least as early as the late 1980s. The problem is such capability connects back to joint CIA and military activities happening primarily in Laos back during the 1960s and 1970s, but also other regions such as Africa.. It had detrimental affect on USAID and other nonmilitary humanitarian aid programs being invited into developing nations. In fact the government of Laos only allowed USAID presence back into Laos a few years ago.

Consider also other US government programs such as the Peace Corps which would also suffer under imagination of such programs being cover for special programs in the field (area or zone of operations) having appearance of being organized in a military manner having capability to
conduct of special operations not assigned to other Government agencies (Department of Defense/CIA) and not under direct control of theater or area commanders.

 

[Gunz]

This type of USAID capability subject is one that has popped up in news articles at least as early as the late 1980s. The problem is such capability connects back to joint CIA and military activities happening primarily in Laos back during the 1960s and 1970s, but also other regions such as Africa.. It had detrimental affect on USAID and other nonmilitary humanitarian aid programs being invited into developing nations. In fact the government of Laos only allowed USAID presence back into Laos a few years ago.

Consider also other US government programs such as the Peace Corps which would also suffer under imagination of such programs being cover for special programs in the field (area or zone of operations) having appearance of being organized in a military manner having capability to
conduct of special operations not assigned to other Government agencies (Department of Defense/CIA) and not under direct control of theater or area commanders.

CIA case officers were running/supporting/arming Hmong guerilla groups in Laos...The agency was also operating a civilian air transport company which was, at times, utilized by USAID.

The CIA has a widely perceived evil reputation that is easily exploited, especially in Third World countries...so you've brought up a good point against militarizing civilian government agencies.

 

[Johca]

The only other aspect of Humanitarian efforts by government agencies and departments is that they are always there on invitation of the hosting nation which is supposed to be providing for their security. If the humanitarian perspective is completely stripped away from such efforts the being there is to stabilize a region and to obtain and sustain good relations between nation-states.

I was watching a conversation on the US southern border issue on cable news and it was explicitly suggested the US needs to have open boarders as it's responsible for destabilizing all the unstable nations around the world. Although I could provide some examples no support was provided by the one offers such examples and examples he could have provided have little direct connection to what is happening currently on the US Southern boarder. This US is the only country mostly involved in destabilizing nations and regions around the world is also a propaganda ploy (psych warfare) talking point since the Korean War. It was quite prevalent view expressed in Africa during the 1960s by the communist and anti-colonialism/imperialism propaganda machine.

 

[Dienekes]

I think this could be USAID trying to get a bigger part of the budget pie. In my view, humanitarian aid has a marketing problem, and countries respond really well to the idea of being security partners compared to the pittance offered them in foreign aid for a variety of reasons. Additionally, people get tired of sending aid to X country that doesn't seem to get any better or do us a favor because we send them millions in aid (actual development outcomes not being discussed because that's a whole nother can of worms). But, if you frame that to say, hey, we can help with security, or we can structure this aid so that X country in Africa sells us rare Earth elements to make our fancy gadgets 20 years down the road rather than the Chinese, ears perk up a little higher. Same end goal of development, but far more buy-in for simply different reasons.