The following item is an opinion piece, collaborated upon by the members of the USAF FAO
Branch--it does not reflect USAF Policy regarding the USAF FAO Program.
American Tragedy -- American Response
During the next several weeks and months, American life will radically change due to the
tragic events of 11 September 2001. How the armed forces will shape its response is still unclear
due to a lack of reliable intelligence, cogent analysis, and a comprehensive plan. Specifically,
USAF's role in any future engagement remains wholly ambiguous but to a few planners in the
recently targeted center of military operations.
Our current CSAF, General John P. Jumper stated that Foreign Area Officers are "true
students of the game", possessing the requisite academic, linguistic, and "boots on the ground"
experience. Interestingly enough, USAF's FAO Branch, does not reside within the Air Staff
structure, but under the Secretariat. Given the finely honed, operationally relevant expertise of our
FAOs, one would expect to find their existence in the Secretariat a bit confused. Would we not
want this level of "operationally relevant expertise" within AF/XO, in other words AF Operations?
This move may occur under the watch of our current leadership. General Jumper is not new to
the world of FAOs, having witnessed first hand the absolutely positive, cultural effects of having a
linguistically talented (in this case French while travelling as USAFE/CC in Sub-Saharan Africa)
officer around.
If the Army had initial growing pains with the care and feeding of their FAOs, then the Air
Force FAO program, while beyond its infancy, still remains wholly underdeveloped and
undernourished. The news however, is not all bad. The AF possesses many highly qualified
FAOs, in part through their academic achievements and many due to their exceptional foreign
language skills. Unfortunately, the Air Force FAO program suffers now because of the Army's
past (now in the process of correction) shortfalls. Many of the AF brown shoes (civilians and
military alike) walking the halls of the Pentagon harangue the younger Action Officers (the writer
includes himself in the latter characterization) of "how the Army didn't get the promotion system
right" or other issues affecting the advancement of FAOs. Many of the aforementioned folks never
got the word--the Army has addressed the problems plaguing the system for several years. The
AF now has the opportunity to take advantage of the assets before them and benefit from the
Army's long and arduous overhaul of the system without having to institutionally endure it.
When the AF responded to DoD Directive 13.1517, which called for instituting a Foreign Area
Officer component in each of the armed services, I applauded the initial efforts. Over time
however, the chinks in the armor became apparent. The AF wanted (and to some degree still
desires) their FAOs to also possess depth and breadth within a primary career field in addition to
maintaining currency within the FAO realm. Early on, this theory made sense to bolster the initial
numbers, but now the practice has caused greater consternation.
FAO development now and into the future is of national interest. It's a touchy subject in
some circles of the military that would rather discuss bigger ships, impenetrable tanks, and more
maneuverable aircraft. In reality, none of those items, those relics of a conventional war, can be
brought to bear without reliable intelligence, cogent analysis, and a comprehensive plan--the very
purview of a Foreign Area Officer. As the nation develops a response to the tragedy, the acts of
war by an unknown aggressor, let us develop the men and women of the Foreign Area Officer
corps for the challenges of tomorrow.
2001, Foreign Area Officer Association
Springfield, Virginia
Maintained by LTC Steve
Gotowicki.
http://www.faoa.org
