A few thoughts on the future of the advisory effort: Contracting didn't work, and neither will a separate advisory corps

By Col. Robert Killebrew, U.S. Army (ret.)

Best Defense chief mentor

On contracting, the current arrangement has been
shown not to work, for a number of reasons -- and I have top-notch friends who
went that route so I know it's not quality of people, just the fact that
contracts don't take the place of enlistments.

On "advisory corps," I've long been on record
saying that it's an exceptionally sucky idea.

With regard to special qualifications of advisors, we are
in agreement again. I was an advisor in a long-ago war, and I've been around
the business for a long time. I think
that advising, training, and equipping allies will be -- has been, in fact -- a
core competency of the armed services -- we have been in the advising
business in every war since WWII, to include Desert Storm, but we consistently
refuse to embrace the business between wars, so it's always a surprise. (Like those guys who are always surprised by
the premature arrival of lunch.)

If I could, I'd tackle the job on several fronts,
starting with consistent joint and service doctrines so we could learn how to
put DOTLM-PF standards against the advisory mission. We should insure that advisory tours reward
people who seek them, and have a school for advisors that teaches the doctrine,
applies the resources, and that can be expanded as it is needed.

I wouldn't make advisory training mandatory unless there
was a requirement for large numbers of advisors, but when we need the
capability, we should have a doctrine and be able to expand the schooling. We
can go back and forth about the differences between advising and training and
equipping and so forth, but that will be dictated by the specifics of each
situation; the important thing is to have the school, have a way that
encourages the best and the brightest to pull an advisory tour without damage
to their careers, and have a surge capability. There are things that have to be fixed at State, but the military still has
a way to go.

Tom
addendum: Maj. Matthew Billings, based on his time in Iraq, seem to think differently:

Really what I think that the Army should do, since
we've seen two recent conflicts using this type of mission set, I really think
that the Army ought to consider having entire advisor brigades formed. A unit
that they can deploy to a certain area for a certain mission and all it needs
is maybe a little bit of focused cultural training before they deploy. That way
you have people who have been working together, training together, and know
each other, and all of the personality conflicts have been worked out ahead of
time and don't come to a head during the deployment. That can be very
dangerous. That is the direction the Army should be heading.