1

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

NEWS FROM THE FRONT

NEWS FROM THE 

FRONT

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

Captain Stephanie Alley, USAF

Joint Center for International Security Force Assistance

Fort Leavenworth, KS

MAY 2018
2

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

NEWS FROM THE FRONT

Senior Advisor Training 

Building the Ready Bench

Reproduction of this publication is welcomed and highly encouraged.

from the CALL website: http://call.army.mil

FOLLOW CALL ON SOCIAL MEDIA

 

https://twitter.com/USArmy_CALL

https://www.facebook.com/CenterforArmyLessonsLearned

The Secretary of the Army has determined that the publication of this periodical is 

necessary in the transaction of the public business as required by law of the 

Department.

Unless otherwise stated, whenever the masculine or feminine gender is used, both are 

intended. Any publications (other than CALL publications) referenced in this product, 

such as Army Regulations (ARs), Field Manuals (FMs), and Technical Manuals (TMs), 

must be obtained through your pinpoint distribution system.

Front cover: HOHENFELS, Germany - U.S. Marines with 6th Air Naval Gunfire Liaison Company Force 

Headquarters Group, Marine Forces Reserve, and soldiers with the 31st Georgian Light Infantry 

Battalion, discuss troop movements over a terrain model after conducting a patrol during the Georgia 

Deployment Program - Resolute Support Mission. MARFORRES Marines play a key role in the 

partnership with the Georgian Armed Forces, preparing the 31st Georgian Light Infantry Battalion to 

deploy to Afghanistan in support of Operation Freedom’s Sentinel, and deploying alongside them. (U.S. 

Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Kimberly Aguirre/Released)
3

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

Senior Advisor Training: Building the Ready Bench

This News from the Front article discusses the purpose and outcomes of the Senior 

Advisor Training Working Group held 16-20 October 2017 hosted by the Joint Center for 

International Security Force Assistance (JCISFA). The article discusses the background 

on the senior advisor training problem, the three topic areas the working group

considered, and the working group’s recommendations.

Introduction to SFA

From Joint Publication (JP) 3-20, Security Cooperation, SFA is defined as “Department 

of Defense activities that support the development of the capacity and capability of 

foreign security forces and their supporting institutions.1” SFA is a subset of Security 

Cooperation (SC) in that it fulfills one of the SC tenants to “develop allied and partner 

nation military and security capabilities” (JP 3-20)2. Common terms associated with SFA 

include Train, Advise, Assist (TAA), Building Partner Capacity (BPC), and Defense 

Institution Building (DIB) when SFA is conducted at the ministerial/department, military 

staff, or service headquarters levels. Based out of Fort Leavenworth, KS, JCISFA is a 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) controlled activity (CCA) that reports to the 

Joint Staff J7 Joint Force Development. Their primary mission is to support the 

integration of SFA capabilities into the current and future Joint Force in order to 

advance joint warfighting capability.

Across all geographic combatant commands (GCCs), advisors from all Services carry 

out SFA. SFA activities are often used to shape the operating environment or assist a 

partner nation in defending against internal and external threats to security or stability. 

Additionally, SFA activities are conducted across the range of military operations and 

across the conflict continuum (from peace through war) supporting Service and joint 

operations/missions. SFA advisors perform duties at all levels of a foreign security force 

(FSF), from being a tactical advisor at the battalion level to a senior advisor at the 

ministerial or component level.

Background on the Problem

In 2016, the Joint Staff J7 Force Development Vice-Director, Major General (MG) John 

Charlton, noted that it appeared senior advisors did not receive the preparation 

necessary to excel in the advising billets to which they were assigned. JCISFA began a 

yearlong “deep dive” study to examine the issue, conducting collection engagements 

with key stakeholders within the community of advisors to develop recommendations. 

The study team confirmed MG Charlton’s observations that training and preparation of 

senior advisors is inadequate. The team concluded that additional training composed of 

SFA: -“Department of Defense (DOD) activities that support the development of the 

capacity and capability of foreign security forces and their supporting institutions.” (JP 

3-20)
4

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

specialized advisor classes from organizations with subject matter expertise in advising

would not resolve the problem without fundamental changes to the existing advisor 

training and selection framework. The team’s main recommendation was to create a 

development “pipeline” to develop potential advisors over the course of their career, 

which in turn will build the ready bench of senior advisors.

The JCISFA study team found that existing preparation of advisors generally was 

constrained by the identification of a senior level advisor relatively close in time to the 

advising deployment. To mitigate this short period of preparation, senior advisors are 

selected based on previous command experience, subject matter expertise, or “just in 

time” training before deployment. Unclear advisor missions or end states further 

aggravated the challenge of adequately preparing advisors. Without a clear mission for

the advisor, the DoD is unable to focus training resources to teach the needed 

capabilities that an advisor requires, and wastes resources training personnel on 

generalized topics related to advising but not on tailored training essential to success.

A year later in June 2017, General (GEN) John Nicholson, Commander of Resolute 

Support (RS), revealed a similar issue regarding senior advisors. He noted to the 

Secretary of Defense that the majority of U.S. individual augmentees (IA) deploying as 

part of NATO’s RS mission, including ministerial level advisors, received no advisor

training. The Secretary of Defense responded that this was an urgent and unsatisfactory 

issue, which resulted in a moratorium on deployments until all individual augmentees 

deploying to Afghanistan in advisory roles were trained. To make the most of the 

collective Subject Matter Experts’ (SMEs) knowledge within the limited timeframe, the 

working group’s efforts were divided into three topic areas to discuss and develop 

recommendations to solve the identified issues.

Many U.S. individual augmentees (IA) deploying as advisors as part of Resolute 

Support (RS) in support of NATO ministerial level advisor requirements received no 

advisor training. 
5

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

Figure 1: FORT LEAVENWORTH, KS – An instructor of the Lessons Learned/Knowledge 

Management Division of JCISFA conducts the out brief of the first Senior Advisor Training 

Working Group on October 20, 2017.

(JCISFA photo by Jessica Meyring, Lessons Learned/Knowledge Management Division)

Working Group Topic #1

Senior advisors are not adequately trained prior to deploying to Afghanistan. How does 

the U.S. better prepare and train individual senior level advisors for service in 

Afghanistan in accordance with RS Commander’s intent?

On day 1 of the working group, RS Command Sergeant Major (CSM) David Clarke 

discussed GEN Nicholson’s intent to better prepare and train individual senior level 

advisors for service in Afghanistan. CSM Clarke conveyed that GEN Nicholson’s 

preferred pre-deployment training option for Train Advise Assist Command (TAAC)-

West, TAAC-North, and “some" Ministry of Defense (MoD) and Ministry of Interior (MoI) 

advisors is to attend NATO Joint Force Training Center (JFTC) in Bydgoszcz, Poland. 

This set the conditions for Topic #1 sub-working group. 

In the sub-working group for Topic #1, SMEs from the following agencies included: : 

United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), NATO, Ministry of Defense Advisors 

(MoDA), 3rd Battalion (BN), 353rd Regiment - Joint Readiness Training Center, RS, 

Marine Forces Command (MARFORCOM), Special Operations Command (SOCOM), 

and Afghanistan-Pakistan (AFPAK) Hands. Based on CSM Clarke’s comments, the 

working group defined the population of “some” Ministry of Defense (MoD) and Ministry 
6

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

of Interior (MoI) advisors as U.S. individual augmentees (IA) at the grade of O-6 serving 

on the RS Headquarters (HQ) staff. 

The sub-working group developed updated USCENTCOM training guidance mandating

that senior advisors arrive in Afghanistan with specified advisor training. The working 

group focused on programming the targeted O-6 IA senior advisors into a summer of 18 

Training Event at the NATO Joint Force Training Centre (Poland) (JFTC). The Army is 

the largest force provider of these senior advisors and as such, the proposed predeployment training cycle was based on a June 2018 graduation of the Army’s Senior 

Service College. 

Consistent with GEN Nicholson’s intent, additional U.S. pre-deployment training 

platforms to train advisors were identified: 

 Army: 3rd BN, 353rd Regiment – Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) at Fort 

Polk, LA

 Air Force: U.S. Air Force Expeditionary Center – Air Advisor Course at McGuire 

AFB, NJ

 Marine Corps: Marine Corps Security Cooperation Group (MCSCG) – Marine 

Advisor Course (MAC) at Fort Story, VA

 OSD: Ministry of Defense Advisors (MoDA) at Camp Atterbury, IN

 Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA): Defense Institute of Security 

Cooperation Studies (DISCS) at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

After three days of collaboration, the Topic #1 participants produced two 

recommendations for review by Headquarters RS. The first recommendation proposed 

changes to the Central Command (CENTCOM) and RS training guidance. The changes 

consisted of adding a directive for all U.S. individual augmentees serving in Crisis 

Establishment (CE) billets or supporting RS HQ shall receive advisor training (including 

ministerial level specific Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs)). The 

recommendation included guidance that U.S. individual augmentees serving in CE 

billets at the ministerial level shall attend NATO Joint Force Command (JFC) joint 

training or JFC Key Leader Training held in Brunssum, the Netherlands, as required by 

the CE document.

The second recommendation proposed a ten-day training model that combines current 

aspects of 3

rd BN, 353rd Regiment – JRTC and MoDA senior level advisor curriculum. 

The model is designed to address the requirements directed by the Secretary of 

Defense and the RS Commander to ensure all advisors deploying to Afghanistan are 

properly trained. The ten-day course employs a building block approach designed to 

place students in learning environments, increasing in complexity, e.g., from classroom 

instruction, to practical exercises, to vignettes carefully tailored to evaluate proficiency in 

required advisory tasks. The course includes the following training lessons for students 

from across the Joint Force and the DoD:
7

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

3

rd BN, 353rd JRTC Training Week 1 MoDA Training Week 2

 History of Advising/Advisor 

Fundamentals

 Resolute Support Overview

 DoD & DoS Policy Overview

 Use of Interpreter and Engagement 

Process

 Afghan History and Geography

 Islam and Afghanistan

 Language Training

 Insider Threat Training

 Afghan Ethnic/Tribal Breakdown & 

Culture

 Regional Country Overview

 Negotiation Concepts and Techniques

 Contemporary Afghan Gov’t and Politics

Figure 2: Training

Working Group Topic #2

Currently no common lexicon (terminology) exists for referring to and describing Subject

Matter Experts (SMEs) that advise the Executive and Generating Functions of a Foreign 

Security Force (FSF).

Two separate sub-working groups were formed for Topic #2 each had various SMEs 

participating from the following agencies: MARFORCOM, Joint Staff J-5, DSCA, United 

States Army Africa Command (USAFRICOM), Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(OSD), AFPAK Hands, Defense Governance Management Team (DGMT), Institute for 

Defense Analyses (IDA), USCENTCOM, Yale University, Air Education and Training 

Command (AETC), and Marine Corps Security Cooperation Group (MCSCG). These 

participants were tasked to develop a common lexicon for referring to and describing 

Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) that advise the Executive and Generating functions of a 

FSF. JP 3-20 explains that FSF perform three generic functions: executive, generating, 

and operating (EGO). The executive function includes strategic direction that provides 

oversight, policy, and resources for the FSF generating and operating functions. FSF 

generating forces refer to the capacity and capabilities of the FSF to organize, train, 

equip, and build operating force units. FSF operating forces form operational 

capabilities through the use of concepts similar to the U.S. joint functions to achieve 

FSF security objectives.3

The Senior Advisor Working Group proposed a fourth function that is not doctrinal for 

inclusion to the EGO structure: the governance function. The governance function 

provides a partner nation government the means to organize and utilize a FSF by way 

of laws and policy, and to provide necessary resources to the FSF. Typical instruments 

within this function include general law and annual authorizations enacted through a 

partner nation’s governmental processes. This proposed addition turns the “EGO” 

Foreign Security Forces perform three generic functions: executive, generating, and 

operating. (JP 3-20)
8

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

functions into the Governance-Executive, Generating, and Operating, or “G-EGO” 

functions. The working group also laid out 21 core processes that are typical to the GEGO functions. The first product of Topic #2 was a standardized lexicon of the G-EGO 

functions and the 21 associated core processes, which can be found in the figure below.

Figure 3: G-EGO 21 Core Processes

To reiterate, the outcome of Topic #2 was to develop a common lexicon for referring to 

and describing SMEs that advise the Executive and Generating functions of a FSF. 

Across the joint force, numerous terms are used to identify SMEs that advise at the 

Executive and Generating levels of a FSF. Such terms also provide the basis to drive 

selection, training, and utilization of these SMEs. These terms have no doctrinal 

underpinning or standardized framework to support understanding and decision-making 

to advance joint force readiness.

Terms such as Ministry Advisor, Senior Level Advisor, Institutional Advisor, 

Executive Level Advisor, and Strategic Level Advisor all refer to advisors aligned to 

either the Executive or Generating function of a FSF. With the exception of Ministry 

Advisor, the other terms are ambiguous and do not specifically indicate in what capacity 

the SME will advise or what FSF counterpart the SME will advise. For example, the 

term Senior Level Advisor infers a select few SMEs that are general officers or senior 

field grade officers that advise senior ranking individuals at the ministry or component 

level of a FSF.
9

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

Figure 4: Relevant Terms and Qualifiers for Advisors of FSF

The working group developed a common lexicon for referring to and describing SMEs 

that advise at the executive, generating, and operating functions of a FSF, as seen in 

Figure 4. The use of practical terms and qualifiers strengthen selection and training 

approaches within the joint force to prepare SMEs to serve as advisors at the 

appropriate level. Furthermore, the lexicon places all DoD advisors in an appropriate 

context within the EGO construct of an FSF. By using qualifiers such as Basic, 

Advanced, and Senior, this serves as benchmarks to describe the required experience 

and/or training that SMEs need to serve as FSF advisors within each respective level of 

the EGO construct. 

Working Group Topic #3

Develop advisor-training topics (e.g. terminal learning objectives (TLOs)) across training 

and education domains in short, mid, and long term planning horizons.

Composed of the same SMEs as Topic #2 and divided into two sub-working groups, 

Topic #3 participants were tasked to create training and education requirements for 

advisors through standardized terminal learning objectives across all institutional 

domains. The working group first considered desirable skills and attributes of successful 

advisors, on the premise that advisors need to possess a variety of individual skills to 

properly perform their assigned mission. Next, the working group agreed that advisors 

should initially be selected based on subject matter expertise in the function or core 

process that they will advise. Technical proficiency, however, does not equate to 
10

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

proficiency as an advisor. Advisors must be able to teach, coach, and advise the FSF. 

Successful advisors are proficient in his or her respective area of SME, combat, 

advising, and possess situation specific skills, as seen in Figure .

The below figure depicts the five block model of individual advisor skills. It is important 

to understand that the five block model is not a process model. The five blocks do not 

depict sequential training and education of advisor skills, but rather independent training 

and education efforts. During the working group, combat and advisor skills (blocks two, 

three, and four) were not addressed. Generally, blocks two, three, and four pertain to 

individual skills that apply to all advisors regardless of their area of subject matter 

expertise or at what level (EGO) advisors will serve. Block one, SME skills, are defined 

as those skills learned through experience, education, or training. Selecting someone 

who does not have the correct subject matter expertise does not automatically result in 

mission failure, but it puts that individual at a severe disadvantage. Block five, situation 

specific skills are determined based on the operational environment (OE), the specific 

mission, and include cultural and regional understanding and language. 

Figure 5: Five Block Model

After the working group participants agreed to adopt the five-block model and only focus 

on blocks one and five. The next task was to organize the training topics or terminal 

learning objectives (TLOs) into training and education domains. In order to define and 

distinguish the different levels of human cognition to be achieved at each TLO, the 

working group used Bloom’s Taxonomy as a framework. The six major categories of 

Bloom’s Taxonomy can be found in Figure 6. Unlike the five block model, Bloom’s 

Taxonomy is a process model.

The working group first considered desirable skills and aspects of successful 

advisors, on the premise that advisors need to possess a variety of individual skills to 

properly perform their assigned mission. 
11

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Create Produce new or original work (design, assemble, construct, conjecture, 

develop, formulate, author, investigate)

Evaluate Justify a stand or decision (appraise, argue, defend, judge, select, 

support, value, critique, weigh)

Analyze Draw connections among ideas (differentiate, organize, relate, 

compare, contrast, distinguish, examine, experiment, question, test)

Apply Use information in new situations (execute, implement, solve, use, 

demonstrate, interpret, operate, schedule, sketch)

Understand Explain ideas or concepts (classify, describe, discuss, explain, identify, 

locate, recognize, report, select, translate)

Remember Recall facts and basic concepts (define, duplicate, list, memorize, 

repeat, state)

Figure 6: Six Major Categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy

The working group then discussed the various training and education platforms that 

could utilize the TLOs. Training platforms were described as collective training that 

prepares units, teams, and individuals for a specific mission or job as Advisors at the 

Executive or Generating levels of a FSF. Pre-deployment training models such as 

individual (JRTC or DISCS), home station, Combat Training Center (CTC), Joint 

Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and Integration (JRSOI), as well as resident 

and non-resident approaches were also considered. Education was described as 

platforms for uniformed and civilians at the junior (e.g. Lieutenant, Sergeant), mid (e.g. 

Major, GS-13), senior (e.g. Colonel, GS-15), and executive (General Officer/Flag 

Officer, Senior Executive Service) levels. Other training and education platforms 

considered were entry and pre-commissioning approaches and resident (e.g. Senior 

Staff College) and non-resident (e.g. Joint Knowledge Online) opportunities. 
12

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

Figure 7: Individual Advisor Skills and Categories of Knowledge

The working group participants then used 

Figure 7 to organize TLOs. The TLOs were broken down into four categories: 

professional military education (PME), specialty training (which includes simulation, 

training or experience in blocks one, and OE training and experience in block five), predeployment, and in-theater/in-country. Further, by tying each of these TLOs to Bloom’s 

Taxonomy, it strengthens the requirement descriptions, training of advisors, and even 

the selection of advisors. This is because the six major categories of Bloom’s Taxonomy 

can also be thought of as the knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) that an advisor must 

possess. 

Currently, there are risks in how uniformed personnel are progressed and trained to 

serve as advisors at the senior level, because there is no standardized progression of 

training and education for advisors, as there is for other military occupational specialties 

(MOSs). This lack of standardization creates uncertainty when evaluating an advisor’s 

career progression. By implementing the below TLOs in all of the training and education 

platforms, this would provide the basis of knowledge for advisors and lessen or 

potentially eliminate the risk as it would create a standardized progression for advisors.

Professional Military Education (PME) TLOs

 O-3 and E-7: Understand the Operating Function from the G-EGO construct (see 

Figure 4) and leadership model within the function.
13

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

 O-4 and E-8: Analyze the generating function from the G-EGO construct (see Figure 

4) – for example, through case studies. Understand leadership model within the 

generating function. 

 O-5/O-6 and E-9: Analyze the executive function from the G-EGO construct (see 

Figure 4) – for example, through case studies. Understand governance function 

from the G-EGO construct and the role of DoS and USAID. Understand leadership 

model in the executive function.

Specialty Training TLOs

 Ability to Analyze, Evaluate, and Create solutions in a situation specific 

condition (e.g., Military Advisor Training Academy (MATA), MoDA, DISCS, Army 

Security Cooperation Planners Course (ASCPC), Marine Corps Security 

Cooperation Group (MCSCG).

Pre-Deployment TLOs

 Ability to Analyze, Evaluate, and Create solutions that are partner nation specific 

(e.g., 3-353rd, MATA, MoDA, MCSCG).

In-Theater/In-Country TLOs

 Ability to Analyze, Evaluate, and Create solutions based on updated and current 

partner nation context (e.g., Joint Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, and 

Integration (JRSOI), Staff Onboarding, Advisor Billet).

Way Forward

The primary finding from the Senior Advisor Training Working Group was that the 

solution to the training and education gap cannot be training alone, but rather a

cohesive joint solution that applies to the entire advisor enterprise. The working group 

recommended that a development pipeline for advisors be established as part of military 

career-field development. The development pipeline would introduce members to 

military advisor training during progressive rank-based training and education beginning 

at the accessions phase of a potential advisor’s career. Regardless of timing, this 

development pipeline relies on a clear advisor mission and clear advisor requirements 

towards which to train. Additionally, this development pipeline requires changes to 

current policy and doctrine dealing with the training and education of military advisors. 

The working group concluded with the following recommended changes to policy and 

doctrine, which JCISFA has since taken the lead on implementing.

Policy (Direction and Guidance):

 Establish joint training standards for inclusion within PME.
14

Approved for Public Release

Distribution Unlimited

 Institute manpower management for an advisor capability in DoD (e.g., Active, 

Guard, Reserve and Contractors). 

 Improve coordination and unity of effort of assorted advising efforts in some 

partner nations.

Doctrine:

 Revise Five Block Model to eliminate perception that it is a process model 

(Advising Multi-service Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (MTTP) for Advising 

Foreign Security Forces).

 Codify senior advisor lexicon in JP 3-20, Security Cooperation, to strengthen 

requirements descriptions, training, and selection.

 Propose language for Defense Institution Building (DIB) inclusion across the joint 

leadership development continuum (e.g. Officer Professional Military Education 

Policy (OPMEP). 

The senior advisor capability gap requires both short and long-term solutions, which

targets institutions providing joint PME, service-level training venues providing advisors, 

and talent management mechanisms that allow for the identification of available 

resources and maintaining capacity to meet emerging requirements of advisors at the 

executive and generating functions. The joint force must not only develop a solution to 

mitigate the current training problem but also create a ready bench of senior advisors to 

effectively fill the current and future demand for senior level advisors. 

1

Joint Publication 3-20, Security Cooperation, p. vii, 23 May 2017.

2

Joint Publication 3-20, Security Cooperation, p. GL-5, 23 May 2017.

3

Joint Publication 3-20, Security Cooperation, p. B-5, 23 May 2017.