Lt. Col. Lloyd Freeman, a Turkish Foreign Area Officer (FAO) and former Marine Attache to Turkey has written an important but unsettling critique of his service's FAO program. Although Freeman found being a FAO personally rewarding, he questions what value the Marines actually get out of the program--especially when alternative sources of cultural and linguistic knowledge are already available.
Much of the critique revolves around career management. In the Army, FAOs actually retrain into a new branch and spend the rest of their careers doing FAO-related assignments. In the Marines, after an extensive three-year training program as FAOs, they then return to the Operating Forces for several years before serving in a FAO "payback" tour. After this single tour, a FAO "is usually at a career juncture where he will either be selected for command or start to look at retirement. Either way, it is highly unlikely that an FAO will ever serve again in an FAO billet." That's not a great return.
Freeman also notes that although FAOs are well-trained, they have neither the language capability to match native translators nor the regional expertise to match dedicated scholars or intelligence officers. When commanders need knowledge, in all probability they will turn to resources like these--and not to the FAO force.
This article caught my eye, because the Air Force's Regional Affairs Specialist (RAS) program functions the same way as the Marine FAO program. We are supposed to alternate between assignments in our primary careers field and RAS assignments. The problem is that there just isn't enough time in a career to do both well. I'm personally wrestling with that tension right now, as I try to map out where my career is headed.
I don't necessarily think Freeman is right, or has the whole truth; from what I've seen, FAOs do serve a critical role and the best of them eventually go on to become genuine regional experts. But this article raises important questions that deserve reflection.
Much of the critique revolves around career management. In the Army, FAOs actually retrain into a new branch and spend the rest of their careers doing FAO-related assignments. In the Marines, after an extensive three-year training program as FAOs, they then return to the Operating Forces for several years before serving in a FAO "payback" tour. After this single tour, a FAO "is usually at a career juncture where he will either be selected for command or start to look at retirement. Either way, it is highly unlikely that an FAO will ever serve again in an FAO billet." That's not a great return.
Freeman also notes that although FAOs are well-trained, they have neither the language capability to match native translators nor the regional expertise to match dedicated scholars or intelligence officers. When commanders need knowledge, in all probability they will turn to resources like these--and not to the FAO force.
This article caught my eye, because the Air Force's Regional Affairs Specialist (RAS) program functions the same way as the Marine FAO program. We are supposed to alternate between assignments in our primary careers field and RAS assignments. The problem is that there just isn't enough time in a career to do both well. I'm personally wrestling with that tension right now, as I try to map out where my career is headed.
I don't necessarily think Freeman is right, or has the whole truth; from what I've seen, FAOs do serve a critical role and the best of them eventually go on to become genuine regional experts. But this article raises important questions that deserve reflection.
No comments:
Post a Comment