Should the old Combat Advisors, e.g. MiTT members, get the same credit being given to SFAB Soldiers?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 Feb 2018 21:53:19 -0500

Many will remember how in the early, pre-surge days, in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the Army created and prioritized combat advisor teams to help build capabilities in those nations security forces. During 2005-2008 they stressed that they were the top fill for the military. The soldiers that were selected were supposed to be some of the best we had. They were sent to a school at, in the case of the Army, Fort Riley, Kansas and later Fort Polk, Louisiana to learn how to be military transition team members and combat advisers to perform Security Force Assistance role. That school was 3-4 months long and involved many long hard days of work in order to graduate as a team and deploy. Following graduation, but before actually starting the mission, they then transitioned to the Phoenix Academy at Taji, Iraq where they completed the Advanced Military Transition Team course. Following graduation from both these schools, as well as completed the other general deployment requirements they were fully trained and capable of going into Iraq or Afghanistan as a combat advisor.
During this period, the Army attempted to incentivize being on MITT, SFAT, or other advisor team by promising its Soldiers and Officers that they would receive top billing for follow on assignments, in some cases key developmental credit, an ASI for completely training, and possibly even a Combat Advisor tab or some other distinctive uniform decoration to wear showing that they had completed the course work and the follow-on assignment as an advisor. These things however never came to fruition. In many cases officers did not receive key developmental credit for their work and there was no ASI for combat advisor created. They also never received any recognition or decoration to wear the uniform for the 4-5 months of hard work they put in training and then a year long deployment as a combat advisor.
With the creation of the Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs) which are really just a new iteration of the old Military Assistance Command-Vietnam (MACV) or Combat Advisor units from OIF and OEF and the creation of the Military Advisor Training Academy, really just a new Phoenix Academy and Military Transition Team Course, there is a lot of talk of bringing the ASI and tab back. While I personally don't believe that they ever will; if they do, would it not be right to give credit where credit is due to the original combat advisers from OEF and OIF who worked hard for those long training sessions and then deployed with little support from the Army or other units in their areas. Do those original advisers not deserve an ASI as they were promised and that combat advisor tab that now makes part of SFAB patch?

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Feb 14 at 2018 10:11 AM

SGM Bill Frazer — Wed, 14 Feb 2018 10:11:50 -0500

You would think, but remember the government promised to take care of the American Indians too. How did that work out?

Response by MSG Jay Jackson made Aug 9 at 2018 12:05 AM

MSG Jay Jackson — Thu, 09 Aug 2018 00:05:33 -0400

Sorry I am late to the discussion but I agree with you. The combat advisors who have served after 911 all need to be recognized for the contribution made. A lot of advisors were killed or wounded. I forget what the casualty rate was.

Response by CPT Ray Gilmore made Dec 1 at 2018 1:29 PM

CPT Ray Gilmore — Sat, 01 Dec 2018 13:29:38 -0500

I am in agreement with you that the MAC-V, ETT/MiTT models, combined with a little SFAS influence are what made today's SFABs, and if they stick around; then the Unit should tip its hat to its founders, who were the Guinea pigs; for what looks like a much better model than we were assigned to....and we should be a chapter or two in their lineage.

Was the over all experience far more testing, than a short stint at FLW, or the Benning school for boys..... easily.

We received a crash course in tactics, culture, language and Small Unit Tactics; followed by the mission itself, and the total cultural immersion of being an ETT or Combat Advisor..... yeah.... that was a lot harder than either Sapper or Ranger School....

But the Bling Thing.....

Insh Allah

Response by LTC Stephen Franke made Jan 1 at 2019 6:15 PM

LTC Stephen Franke — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 18:15:19 -0500

Greetings to all in this interesting thread.
Thanks to MAJ Oles for his original post, above (posted on 13 Feb 2018; just found it in full and responding on Tuesday, 1 January 2019).

His discussion raises some valid and worthy questions.

** Agree with and support his contention that members of those various pre-SFAB (here using a generic collective term, vice MiTTs, MTTs, SFAATs et al) "security force assistance" teams should receive retroactive credit, recognition and commensurate professional consideration, i.e. KD and CSL, etc. They performed those unique and hazardous duties with their counterparts as << combat advisors >> in every sense of the term, pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, versus those performed per Title 22, U.S. Code (duty as security assistance advisors with DOD Joint Service (i.e. USMTM Saudi Arabia, MAP Jordan or OMC Cairo, Egypt) or Army-only (i.e. OPM-SANG) Security Cooperation Organizations (aka SCOs), for those functions, U.S. Dept. of State is principal proponent).

** As best I understand from online media, including article in ARMY TIMES and posts by HRC Enlisted Reenlistment people seeking qualified NCOs to volunteer for assignment and duty with the SFABs, those NCOs selected and trained (i.e. upon completion of the MATA's Combat Advisor Training Course) are awarded an new ASI, along with the "Advisor" tab, reflecting that new qualification.

** Unclear whether that tab stays as a permanent distinctive item on the uniform when the SFABer eventually rotates to another assignment. ** As a SWAG, surmise that HRC also awards a similar ASI, along with the tab, to officers accepted for SFAB who also complete that MATA MOSQ-like course.

** FWIW, in the early 1970s, DA DCSOPS (now DAMO G3/5/7) established a stand-alone "Military Assistance Officer Program" (MAOP), complete with dedicated AR in the 614-XX series. After voluntary entry to MAOP and completion of the required series of PME and training phases -- similar to that for FAOs -- MAOP members were awarded ASI 4P "Security Assistance Officer." Back then, MAOP was apparently intended to develop and provide a population of qualified military advisors firstly to support US pol-military presence in SE Asia, primarily VN and Thailand, and later to support SCOs (MAAGs, Mil Groups, MTMs et al) elsewhere in the world. For various reasons, MAOP was rolled and absorbed into the FAO Specialty in mid-1970s, as best I recall.

** In its Army-wide implementation of our Army's (ahem) "SFAB Enterprise," HRC is smart to include award of an ASI to qualified SFAB members as a means of building a manageable -- and searchable for future repetitive assignments or surge requirements -- pool of SFAB-qualified NCOs and officers. (Our Army does not deserve nor need a repetition of the DOD's beleaguered AfPak Hands Program.)

** As a parallel and ironic FWIW note, the U.S. Marine Corps' Security Cooperation Group (MCSCG) is reportedly about to undergo an expansion and rebranding as Marine Adviser Group. MCSCG is a close-equivalent schoolhouse of the MATA at Fort Benning, in that MCSCG trains, assesses, certifies and deploys USMC-resourced Security Assistance Teams ("SATs") for OCONUS duty as advisors, trainers, and force-developers/modernizers of their foreign military counterpart schools and units.
== FULL DISCLOSURE: [ Have been occasional on-site LREC SME/advisor/course-developer and role-player to support pre-deployment training programs (PTPs) of SATS outbound to Arabic-prevalent host countries in the CENTCOM AOR. ]

(I remember that initial advisor training academy MAJ Oles mentions at Fort Riley. That academy was housed inside a bunch of trailers clustered in the Camp Funston area; I was there during 2006 as occasional SME / advisor / "train the trainer" on the "Tactical Iraqi Arabic" language and "operational culture' software program for self-training.)

** Hope these observations add to this thread. Hope that the good people at DQ DAMO G3/5/7 and personnel managers at USAHRC become aware of this thread. (Can't contact them myself because DA G6/CIO deleted military retirees from access to AKO.)

Regards,

Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (48G Middle East - "Gulfie")/MI/
SOF/Attache/Security Cooperation,
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro (Los Angeles Waterfront Area), California

Response by LTC Stephen Franke made Jan 1 at 2019 7:54 PM

LTC Stephen Franke — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 19:54:13 -0500

(Posting again after unexpected "blip-and-dip" in local power here when sending this note earlier today, 1 Jan 2019 // SH Franke)
--------------------------------------------------

Greetings to all in this interesting thread.

Thanks to MAJ Oles for his original post, above (posted on 13 Feb 2018; just found it in full and am responding on Tuesday, 1 January 2019).

His discussion raises some valid and worthy questions.

** Agree with and support his contention that members of those various pre-SFAB (here using a generic collective term, vice MiTTs, MTTs, SFAATs et al) "security force assistance" teams should receive retroactive credit, recognition and commensurate professional consideration, i.e. KD and CSL, etc. They performed those unique and hazardous duties with their counterparts as << combat advisors >> in every sense of the term, pursuant to Title 10, U.S. Code, versus those performed per Title 22, U.S. Code (duty as security assistance advisors with DOD Joint Service (i.e. USMTM Saudi Arabia, MAP Jordan or OMC Cairo, Egypt) or Army-only (i.e. OPM-SANG) Security Cooperation Organizations (aka SCOs), and for those functions, U.S. Dept. of State is principal proponent).

** As best I understand from online media, including several articles in ARMY TIMES, MIL TIMES, and posts by USAHRC Enlisted Reenlistment people seeking qualified NCOs to volunteer for assignment and duty with the SFABs, those NCOs selected and trained (i.e. upon completion of the MATA's Combat Advisor Training Course) are awarded an new ASI, along with the "Advisor" tab, reflecting that new qualification.

** Unclear whether that tab stays as a permanent distinctive item on the uniform when the SFAB member eventually rotates to another assignment. ** As a SWAG, surmise that USAHRC also awards a similar ASI, along with the tab, to officers accepted for SFAB who also complete that MATA MOSQ-like course.

** FWIW, in the early 1970s, DA DCSOPS (now DAMO G3/5/7) established a stand-alone "Military Assistance Officer Program" (MAOP), complete with dedicated AR in the 614-XX series. After voluntary entry to MAOP and completion of the required series of PME and training phases -- similar to that for FAOs -- MAOP members were awarded ASI 4P "Security Assistance Officer." Back then, MAOP was apparently intended to provide a population of military advisors firstly to support US pol-military presence in SE Asia, primarily VN and Thailand, and later to support SCOs (MAAGs, Mil Groups, MTMs et al) elsewhere in the world. For various reasons, MAOP was rolled and absorbed into the FAO Specialty in mid-1970s, as best I recall.

** In its Army-wide implementation of our Army's (ahem) "SFAB Enterprise," HRC is smart to include award of an ASI to qualified SFAB members as a means of building a manageable -- and searchable for future repetitive assignments or surge requirements -- pool of SFAB-qualified NCOs and officers. (Our Army does not deserve nor need a repetition of the DOD's beleaguered AfPak Hands Program.)

** As a parallel and ironic FWIW note, the U.S. Marine Corps' Security Cooperation Group (MCSCG) is reportedly about to undergo an expansion and rebranding as Marine Adviser Group. MCSCG is a close-equivalent schoolhouse of the MATA at Fort Benning, in that MCSCG trains, assesses, certifies and deploys USMC-resourced Security Assistance Teams ("SATs") for OCONUS duty as advisors, trainers, and force-developers/modernizers of their foreign military counterpart schools and units.

== FULL DISCLOSURE: [ Have been occasional on-site LREC SME/advisor/course-developer and role-player to support pre-deployment training programs (PTPs) of SATS outbound to Arabic-prevalent host countries in the CENTCOM AOR. ]

(I remember that initial advisor training academy MAJ Oles mentions at Fort Riley. That academy was housed inside a bunch of trailers clustered in the Camp Funston area; I was there several times during 2006 as occasional SME / advisor / "train the trainer" on the "Tactical Iraqi Arabic" language and "operational culture' software program for self-training. The 2d BDE of 1st ID (Mech) seemed effectively gutted with that "re-missioning" to provide cadre and support operation of that advisor academy.)

** Hope these observations add to this thread. Hope that the good people at DQ DAMO G3/5/7 and personnel managers at USAHRC become aware of this thread. (Can't contact them myself because DA G6/CIO deleted military retirees from access to AKO.)

Regards,

Stephen H. Franke
LTC, FAO (48G Middle East - "Gulfie")/MI/
SOF/Attache/Security Cooperation,
U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro (Los Angeles Waterfront Area), California

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jan 1 at 2019 9:59 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Tue, 01 Jan 2019 21:59:23 -0500

Open one can of worms and: would you include KMAG Soldiers? ‘Hamlet’ Marines in Nam? The Army has always fielded advisors and trainers.

Response by LTC Stephen Franke made May 12 at 2019 9:11 PM

LTC Stephen Franke — Sun, 12 May 2019 21:11:40 -0400

Greetings again to all in this interesting thread ref MAJ Oles' good question.

** Today is Sunday, 12 May 2019.

** Would appreciate any advisement / update / SITREP about whether his query has, by now -- after a year -- been answered and its matter of equivalent accreditation been resolved by appropriate action at HQDA or the mil personnel records managers USAHRC.

** Perhaps another source for some relevant and authoritative information / action about MAJ Oles' worthy question is the newly-activated Security Force Assistance Command (SFAC) based at Fort Bragg, NC. That SFAC seems immersed inside the FORSCOM empire also there at Bragg.

Hope all is going well, effectively and safely for the 2nd SFAB, now operating in Afghanistan since late last February.

Regards to all.

Sincerely,

Stephen H. Franke
LTC, U.S. Army Retired
San Pedro, California

Response by SFC Ken Reeves made Jun 18 at 2019 11:47 AM

SFC Ken Reeves — Tue, 18 Jun 2019 11:47:58 -0400

Wow. Yes, as a Soldier training up team members for deployment, I also remember all those mentioned things of a selection of follow up assignment preference, ASI code, but I had also been told I would be redeployed as a MiTT member also after about 6 months that the first team got back from Iraq or Afganistan. Since I was involved with the whole program from start and was considered to be in the "know" of how this whole MiTT mission was going to work then who better to send back on the same mission I was training people up for. Yes, I was sold on the idea and I bought it. Sell the recruiter on how easy it is to recruit. That was the mentality I got to experience while doing recruiting duty and I never bought it. Unfortunately, I believe what my command was putting out. I can only assume they were being told the same thing and the ball never seemed to be actually rolling around on what I was being told. All fluff... As far as some of those Soldiers, Airman, or Sailors being the best... I can tell you from experience that the whole talk was overplayed. Granted, it did seem the Airmen I worked with were great. The Sailors were just as great. Some of my fellow Soldiers... um... I'm hesitant to say they "all" were the best the army had to offer. Some of those being the National Guard also. Downright being told that these guys who were not the cream of the crop and being passed off down the road. Even talking to one of the Master Sergeants once she got to the country only to be informed that she would be babysitting a Captain who was also just passed off down the road to someone else. Even telling me a story how they were to take a chopper out one day and she wanted to let this Captain go get on the chopper out to some other FOB but her conscientious told her to go get him. Get him off the chopper. Do the right thing. Help the Captain succeed because that is what a good NCO would do. Asking me over and over again why did this guy get to pass. To be in this program that was for the cream of the crop. That 10%. I think I understood at that point it was all fluff. I think the Master Sergeant felt for no need to follow on emails since I did not hear from her again. No, she was not killed as a direct action of the Captain making some mistake. I did check. Never saw her picture.. so yes.. I did look.

Response by MAJ Ryan Hunt made Dec 24 at 2021 12:54 PM

MAJ Ryan Hunt — Fri, 24 Dec 2021 12:54:43 -0500

Agreed! We deserved it, but I am retired now so it’s 6 to 1 half a dozen the other.

Response by SFC William Linnell made Jun 30 at 2024 11:15 AM

SFC William Linnell — Sun, 30 Jun 2024 11:15:57 -0400

I went thru the training back in 06 at Camp Funcston, Fort Riley. Our class had over 500 graduates from the Army, AF, Navy and National Guard. I went to Afghan with a 21 man team. Our Command Group was the Marine 2-5 PMT at Black Horse, Kabul. We were split up to 6 man teams to cover the 201st Afghan Border Police from Naray, Kunar, Nangahar to Torkum Gate. I was at Camp Joyce near Asadabad. It was exciting to say the least.

I have the PDSI of T1B. Though not as an ASI. Some of us came back to end up at Funcston again as Instructors/Small Group Leaders. A thankless job of 6 days a week with each NCO training usually 2 teams each. We conducted all the classes as a company, later it was then broken down to training committees doing the majority of classes while still maintaining control of individual teams. We did the Summer Surge in 08 training around 2100 individuals from the different branches. Then some genius made the decision to move the school down to Polk where the original Advisor School was during the Vietnam War (Tiger Land). We established the same AO they did. It was a crazy set up as we where a Brigade Size element, 162d Infantry with 4 BNs designated as Artillery Units.

It was a cluster f**k. All they had to do was utilize all the training plans we brought down from Riley. Too easy, right? Nope. Reinventing the wheel. Different Officers trying to make their mark. And one would think that we would have a higher priority on the use of certain training areas that we established specifically making mount sites as directed by Post CMD. Nope again. We had to "fight" for use of our own training sites.

There was talk I remember of a Combat Advisor tab for those of us that did the mission. Of course we didn't. Furthering my belief that the Infantry Mafia is in control of such things and the Powers that be don't want to upset the Infantry. :)