Regionally Aligned Forces and the role of the United States in the world

[Farnan]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...aymond_odierno

That article is long so the wiki for people that don't want to read all of that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regionally_Aligned_Forces

Basically the US Army has begun a program of aligning brigades to geographic commands. For example the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Infantry Division was aligned to AFRICOM. The goal is two fold: to make units that specialize in regions of the world and to provide a force to participate in partnership operations with nations in the region. Example activities from the article include training African forces for operations in the UN mission in Mali and combined training exercises with the South African Army.

What do you think of this concept?

And what do you think of it in reference to America's role in the world?

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Very interesting stuff, i've yet to read the article in the detail it deserves, but from a preliminary skim read (my apologies for a lack of detail as of yet, it's late here! ). It strikes me as a very reasonable and adequate response to the modern nature of warfare on the surface of things. It's absolutely imperative as i believe most Coalition and NATO forces have found recently to understand the 'Hearts and minds' game and the integral place such a thing has in modern conflict, especially since the days of 'smash and grab' conflicts are over, and it's more important to build long-lasting and stable friendly foundations after an opponent has been defeated, to make that area 'safe' for the long term and thus expend fewer resources in the long run having to keep going back.

So i applaud the initiate and hope it gets up some real momentum, not just in the US but also in other Western armed forces. Though it's interesting to note that actually i believe only the US is really capable of doing something like this on this large a scale (i'd like to see the British army split up and aligned so- that would be a couple hundred odd men for the continent of Africa etc!). So it could be something potentially very unique to their operating mode, and indeed thus places them perhaps at the heart of any 'Western' future conflict (If this method is adopted) as you can probably see the NATO powers involved relying on US knowledge of that particular alignment (Or indeed if directly involved, allowing them to spearhead) operations- it would only make sense.

And this is where i believe i can see the criticism coming in. For starters, and perhaps the most obvious. It means the US is well and truly 'out there' (I know currently there is a bit of contention among NATO about 'pulling weight' and indeed both sides have their points- the biggest issue of course is that no one in the World spends money like the US does on their militaries, so it's always a case of unrealistic expectation on behalf of a superpower, towards it's Allies- the UK for instance is already the 6th largest military spender on Earth, and China who is second, is no where near the US in terms of expenditure). By 'out-there' of course i mean they will quite probably be fronting every NATO, or partaking in every Independent allied op in some form or another due to their assets already being orientated towards whatever region. Something that i'm unsure of how the US public will see it going down.

This also ties in with my next point- that of appearance. A cynic would say (or indeed critics of the US would also gladly point out) that this all rather smacks of overt hegemony, and is perhaps the visible part of US economic imperialism made manifest. Assigning military commands specifically to regions where currently their is no real conflict going on is a very overt political and military message of 'we're here to mess around in your backyard'. While prior to such a thing of course the same went on, but now with it being so public and straightforward, it rather highlights the US's foreign policy for 'World Police' and intervention. An aspect both good and bad at the same time depending upon perspective of course.

So interesting read so far, that's just my current train of thought.

[Col. Tartleton]

Why don't we just recruit and train African born American equipped and paid soldiers to carry out our interest in the region? Sepoy style. If worst case scenario they mutiny they'll be in Africa so its not like they're going to be a huge threat to our security.

I mean there's naturally been a historical problem when you use foreign mercenaries inside your own borders to enforce the law at home. However there are also historical problems when you use your native troops to fight foreign wars in foreign lands.

[hellheaven1987]

Why don't we just recruit and train African born American equipped and paid soldiers to carry out our interest in the region?

I thought US already did and that is called Liberia...

[Col. Tartleton]

I thought US already did and that is called Liberia...

Nah, that's where we shipped all the Angolans after the whole slavery fiasco went to .

[Condottiere 40K]

The Americans need Sepoys in in likely crisis areas, that they only need to provide cadre and technical support for. As for the Europeans,they'd be pleased if some of them started pulling their own weight.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Just to reiterate on my previous statement, I take it back seems the UK also is looking to do this:

In addition, the US has no plans to habitually align brigades with specific
regions, a measure which would contribute
greatly to building relationships and
increasing understanding. The British
Army, on the other hand, is examining
such a possibility.

https://www.rusi.org/downloads/asset...7_NB_Cline.pdf

With the added implication that the UK will give certain brigades, certain regions. As stated in the article, this has this plus side of unparalleled local knowledge. But on the other hand:

Yet decisions must still be made as to how long personnel should remain with
these units in order to build enduring
relationships. And in addition, there is
the issue that these brigades will retain
responsibility for standing commitments
(for example, in Cyprus), UK resilience
and rotations on longstanding
operations, potentially diluting their
focus on defence engagement.
Furthermore, while Regionally
Aligned Forces may allow the US and
UK to achieve some of the key goals
of defence engagement – including
building partner capacity, showing
commitment to host states and
increasing responsiveness to crises –
they are unlikely to contribute to them
all. This is because non-persistent
activity, even if conducted regularly,
will at best only achieve familiarisation
with the target regions; building lasting
relationships will require greater depth.
Here the British Army has the
most ground to cover, with the US
Army benefiting from its Foreign Area
Officer (FAO) programme.

And:

Though the British Army offers a number of FAO-like positions
(including the roles of defence attaché
and regional desk officer), recruitment
is not based upon a holistic view of the
need for specialised officer development
over the long term. Indeed, attaché
positions are generally filled by those not
selected for higher command posts; this
needs to change. In recognition of this,
UK planners are exploring new career
structures that may offer similar benefits
to the US model. But for the British
Army to attract its best officers into this
programme, it must provide specialised
training and guarantee promotion at
comparable rates to basic arms officers.

So it appears that the more flexible, non-aligned brigade model of the US, while perhaps not allowing for the depth of knowledge and regional ability that the UK seems to want, may be the most practical (and dare i say better solution) for when actual conflict happens. Due to the US having greater flexibility with it's force deployments (in theory).

It's rather ironic actually, ideally the UK and US would swap doctrines, as they seem to suit each others' abilities far better! The US has the capability and size to actually operate regionally aligned brigades without compromising other areas, flexibility and reserve deployments. Meanwhile due to the British armies smaller size, it would make far more sense to take the US route here and not specifically align brigades to regions to such an extent, as while it has it's benefits, we simply don't have the numbers to make it worthwhile long term.

[Col. Tartleton]

The UK could always squeeze the bankers and crooks for more cash and hire more soldiers. It's not like you don't have the money.

I mean people wonder why Scotland has so many unemployed working class people these days. Traditionally those Scots would be abroad fighting.

[Condottiere 40K]

So were the Irish.

[Col. Tartleton]

So were the Irish.

Yeah but they're off the teat now.

[Captain Jin]

I guess it can be good in some respects. I think important aspects are cultural understanding of the regions they'll be working in and the idea that maybe after some time you can forge some kind of bond with the host nations forces that work repeatedly with the same unit (even if the people in the unit are different) over a course of some years. It sort of works for the Marine Corps in Thailand, Korea and the Philippines. We have a strong relationship with all of those countries Marines thanks to training exercises that have gone on unfettered even during the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then there's a lot of shared lineage between our Corps and theirs. Of course we don't have units specifically dedicated to those countries, but in a way it works out like that since only west coast and Hawaii-based Marines do UDPs to Okinawa and/or floats in the South Pacific that invariably means these countries are always working with Marines from 1stMARDIV. So the only region in that regard would be the Pacific ocean, but they could end up working with any battalion from any of the MEUs that pass through the area.

[Farnan]

Very interesting stuff, i've yet to read the article in the detail it deserves, but from a preliminary skim read (my apologies for a lack of detail as of yet, it's late here! ). It strikes me as a very reasonable and adequate response to the modern nature of warfare on the surface of things. It's absolutely imperative as i believe most Coalition and NATO forces have found recently to understand the 'Hearts and minds' game and the integral place such a thing has in modern conflict, especially since the days of 'smash and grab' conflicts are over, and it's more important to build long-lasting and stable friendly foundations after an opponent has been defeated, to make that area 'safe' for the long term and thus expend fewer resources in the long run having to keep going back.

So i applaud the initiate and hope it gets up some real momentum, not just in the US but also in other Western armed forces. Though it's interesting to note that actually i believe only the US is really capable of doing something like this on this large a scale (i'd like to see the British army split up and aligned so- that would be a couple hundred odd men for the continent of Africa etc!). So it could be something potentially very unique to their operating mode, and indeed thus places them perhaps at the heart of any 'Western' future conflict (If this method is adopted) as you can probably see the NATO powers involved relying on US knowledge of that particular alignment (Or indeed if directly involved, allowing them to spearhead) operations- it would only make sense.

And this is where i believe i can see the criticism coming in. For starters, and perhaps the most obvious. It means the US is well and truly 'out there' (I know currently there is a bit of contention among NATO about 'pulling weight' and indeed both sides have their points- the biggest issue of course is that no one in the World spends money like the US does on their militaries, so it's always a case of unrealistic expectation on behalf of a superpower, towards it's Allies- the UK for instance is already the 6th largest military spender on Earth, and China who is second, is no where near the US in terms of expenditure). By 'out-there' of course i mean they will quite probably be fronting every NATO, or partaking in every Independent allied op in some form or another due to their assets already being orientated towards whatever region. Something that i'm unsure of how the US public will see it going down.

This also ties in with my next point- that of appearance. A cynic would say (or indeed critics of the US would also gladly point out) that this all rather smacks of overt hegemony, and is perhaps the visible part of US economic imperialism made manifest. Assigning military commands specifically to regions where currently their is no real conflict going on is a very overt political and military message of 'we're here to mess around in your backyard'. While prior to such a thing of course the same went on, but now with it being so public and straightforward, it rather highlights the US's foreign policy for 'World Police' and intervention. An aspect both good and bad at the same time depending upon perspective of course.

So interesting read so far, that's just my current train of thought.

I want to clarify that the regional commands have existed since 1947. What this does is assign units to operate under them for partnership and other operations. This represents a larger level of emphasis on partnership with local elements.

Why don't we just recruit and train African born American equipped and paid soldiers to carry out our interest in the region? Sepoy style. If worst case scenario they mutiny they'll be in Africa so its not like they're going to be a huge threat to our security.

I mean there's naturally been a historical problem when you use foreign mercenaries inside your own borders to enforce the law at home. However there are also historical problems when you use your native troops to fight foreign wars in foreign lands.

Why should we pay African mercenaries?

We are training African Soldiers so they can deal with sources of instability on their own. The idea is to train local forces to conduct operations on their own. This will allow them to protect their own country and people, increasing stability in their own region without US forces being directly involved. This saves US blood and treasure, while allowing countries to protect themselves decreasing their dependence on the US.

Just to reiterate on my previous statement, I take it back seems the UK also is looking to do this:



https://www.rusi.org/downloads/asset...7_NB_Cline.pdf

With the added implication that the UK will give certain brigades, certain regions. As stated in the article, this has this plus side of unparalleled local knowledge. But on the other hand:



And:



So it appears that the more flexible, non-aligned brigade model of the US, while perhaps not allowing for the depth of knowledge and regional ability that the UK seems to want, may be the most practical (and dare i say better solution) for when actual conflict happens. Due to the US having greater flexibility with it's force deployments (in theory).

It's rather ironic actually, ideally the UK and US would swap doctrines, as they seem to suit each others' abilities far better! The US has the capability and size to actually operate regionally aligned brigades without compromising other areas, flexibility and reserve deployments. Meanwhile due to the British armies smaller size, it would make far more sense to take the US route here and not specifically align brigades to regions to such an extent, as while it has it's benefits, we simply don't have the numbers to make it worthwhile long term.

I agree somewhat. I think the idea of rotating US Brigades is to prevent he Soldiers from being burned out with constant deployments. However, I'd like to see how it works. The first RAF brigade is still on rotation, I think (not sure right now).

I guess it can be good in some respects. I think important aspects are cultural understanding of the regions they'll be working in and the idea that maybe after some time you can forge some kind of bond with the host nations forces that work repeatedly with the same unit (even if the people in the unit are different) over a course of some years. It sort of works for the Marine Corps in Thailand, Korea and the Philippines. We have a strong relationship with all of those countries Marines thanks to training exercises that have gone on unfettered even during the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But then there's a lot of shared lineage between our Corps and theirs. Of course we don't have units specifically dedicated to those countries, but in a way it works out like that since only west coast and Hawaii-based Marines do UDPs to Okinawa and/or floats in the South Pacific that invariably means these countries are always working with Marines from 1stMARDIV. So the only region in that regard would be the Pacific ocean, but they could end up working with any battalion from any of the MEUs that pass through the area.

I think partnership is a great way to build stability in an area on the cheap. It builds sustainable security in their region and costs far less than direct US involvement.

[hellheaven1987]

We are training African Soldiers so they can deal with sources of instability on their own.

Good luck then, it worked so well last time in Mali.

[Farnan]

Good luck then, it worked so well last time in Mali.

What do you mean?

[Col. Tartleton]

Why should we pay African mercenaries?

We are training African Soldiers so they can deal with sources of instability on their own. The idea is to train local forces to conduct operations on their own. This will allow them to protect their own country and people, increasing stability in their own region without US forces being directly involved. This saves US blood and treasure, while allowing countries to protect themselves decreasing their dependence on the US.

I think it depends which countries we're talking about. Who are we supposed to train in the Horn? They're either paranoid anti colonials or terrorists.

[Farnan]

I think it depends which countries we're talking about. Who are we supposed to train in the Horn? They're either paranoid anti colonials or terrorists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African...ion_to_Somalia

[Col. Tartleton]

Uganda should be focusing on their own issues.

[Farnan]

Uganda should be focusing on their own issues.

The LRA is all but dead

[Col. Tartleton]

The LRA is all but dead

Well in that case good, they should be crushing the Shabaab for us.