Hottest Assignment in the Army ?

[tomahawk6]

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-1495429.php

The Military Transition Team or MITT may be the hotest job in the Army. MITT's are small training teams in Iraq and Afghanistan. Long after the US Army draws down in those two countries these teams will still be in theater training Iraqi/Afghan Army units.

"The officers and NCOs are currently hand-picked via directives sent down through the major Army command to the brigade level. The profile of a good candidate starts with some basic requirements:

• Recent operational experience.

• Strong personnel file and evaluations.

• History of strong midlevel leadership positions — for an enlisted soldier, squad or section leadership experience and platoon leadership; for an officer, company command.

• Demonstrated ability to train and instruct soldiers.

• Experience in career field or military occupational specialty."

Team composition:

"Most of the teams are at the battalion level. There are other types of teams that train police and border guards, but the most common type of team in Iraq with the largest number on the ground is the MITT, which comprises six officers and five NCOs:

• Team chief, major.

• Operations officer, captain.

• Intelligence team, captain and NCO.

• Logistics team, captain and NCO.

• HQ logistics adviser, captain

• Fire support team, captain and NCO.

• Communications NCO.

• Medic NCO."

 

[3rd Herd]

Tom.
correct me if I am wrong but does not the team composition look suspiciously like a scaled down SF A team in regard to the MOC's. If it was not for the high officer ratio I would think green beenies.

 

[tomahawk6]

It does mimic an SF ODA. These teams are intended to act as advisors for battalion size elements freeing up SF personnel for other missions.

 

[Chimo]

I think this is one area we as a country, could contribute to the fight in Iraq. Hopefully, our newly elected government will understand the sooner, security is established under Iraqi leadership the sooner Iraq will be come more peaceful and productive.

We have similar doctrine and operational experience I feel it would be a great opportunity for our Army. 

 

[tomahawk6]

The MITT soldiers go out on combat patrols with the IA so its very much a hot job in that context as well as being a path to further advancement.

 

[Armymedic]

We do similar things with the ANA, in Afghanistan.
An MITT is a short term Embedded Training Team.
This is an area we need to get deeper into and make a larger commitment towards. Unfortunately the proximity of these troops to where the action is (combat operations vs peace support) has not been well received by our govt, and hence their unwillingness in the past to dive deeper.

 

[tomahawk6]

As long as a government determines military deployments by the amount of risk [possibel casualties] then it essentially selects safe deployments as opposed to active combat. The US government after Vietnam for many years was risk adverse because it was felt the public wouldnt tolerate casualties.

 

[Chimo]

Tomahawk the bigger issue in Canada is the general lack of support for the US invasion of Iraq. Unless there is a big mind-shift in that area I can not see any military support being offered. You make a good point about risk adversity and our senior commanders are educating the public now on that very possibility as we begin our next role in Afghanistan.

Personally, I feel that we all need to be contributing to the mission in Iraq to help get the government on its feet and stable and giving the civilians the support they need.

 

[3rd Herd]

Tomahawk the bigger issue in Canada is the general lack of support for the US invasion of Iraq. Unless there is a big mind-shift in that area I can not see any military support being offered.

I think Chimo that one of the bigger reasons for lack of support is more on the economic/political plane than the public. At least particularly out here in the west given both the effects of the soft wood dispute and the mad cow crisis on both local and the provincial economy. It is hard to justify participation in a conflict as an ally when that ally has wrecked havoc with your lively hood. In conjunction was Mr. Bush's statement that rebuilding efforts, contracts would go to those nations which helped in the prosecution of the war. Additionally, the failure to find WMDS at the initial start has damaged the credibility of Mr. Bush in many Canadian minds. Now with Afghanistan it is to some extent a different "ball game" as the war was from the start was "declared a war on terrorism". The settting up of the PRT and the civilian military structure was a masterful media touch. Along with the pounding into the public mind set of the totalitarianism of the Taliban regime.This makes the Afghanistan adventure some what more palatable to the Canadian public.