Clay Daniels
GP4800
Researching Civil Affairs history, training and future opportunities for the branch
Stanley Sandler, Glad to See Them Come, Sorry to See Them Go,
Washington D.C., U.S. Government Publishing Office, 1994.
560 pages
Sandler, a USASOC historian, chronicles the history of civil military operations in
major American campaigns, civil affairs and military government operations from
the early explorers of the American West through Panama, Grenada and Desert
Storm.
The most informative chapters detail the civil affairs and military government
efforts in the aftermath of World War I and in the preparation for and execution of
military governance in World War II. The chapters outlining the School of Military
Government, Civil Affairs Training Schools and the political implications of
beginning the Civil Affairs/Military Government career field were particularly
interesting.
The chapter detailing the American occupation of South Korea following World War
II provides a basic history of the U.S. role in the turn over of Korea from a Japanese
territory to a sovereign nation. Other resources better detail the political
miscalculations of American intervention in Korea, Sandler focuses on the
shortcomings of civil affairs during the occupation which directly affected the
American CMO in the Korean War.
The chapters on the Korea War, Panama and Grenada were more narrowly focused
than the world war chapters. Sandler wrote another book The Korean War: No
Victors, No Vanquished that goes further in depth on the Korean conflict.
The chapters on Desert Storm, Panama and Grenada explain the difficulties of
employing reserve civil affairs forces when they aren’t included in the planning and
preparation for a campaign.
Scot Storey, “Rebalancing Army Civil Affairs: The Key to Military Governance”
Army War College Thesis, 2012.
For his Army War College thesis, Storey proposes a Civil Affairs Governance
Specialist, 38G.
He briefly outlines historical examples of military stability and reconstruction
operations in order to support the CA Governance Specialist. He recommends the
Army become the joint proponent for the 38G and publishes military government
doctrine. Not terribly in depth analysis but decent ideas about implementation
within the Army system. Seems as though it was written in parallel to the 38G
development at SWCS.
Brent C. Bankus and James O. Kievit, “Reopen a joint school of military government
and administration?” in Small Wars & Insurgencies Vol. 19, No. 1, March 2008, 137–
143.
Brent Bankus is a Pennsylvania National Guardsman assigned to the Strategic
Studies Institute
James Kievit is a retired Army officer and Strategic Research Analyst at the Army
War College.
Bankus and Kievit examine the potential for a joint school of military government
and government administration. They examine historical examples where the
military has been called upon to administer foreign governments from the Mexican
War through World War II. The authors look back to the civil military operations of
Winfield Scott as well as the School of Military Government. They speak to a small
extent at the need for good governance in stability operations. Selfishly, I wish they
had looked more at the potential for employment if the school of mil gov were to be
stood up again.
Charles S. Hyneman, “The Army’s Civil Affairs Training Program,”
In The American Political Science Review, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Apr, 1944), 342-353.
Charles Hyneman was a Distinguished Professor of political science at Indiana
University
Hyneman explains the Civil Affairs Training Program down to the contact hours per
subject. He discusses some of the differences between the Military School of
Government and the CA training schools at universities around the nation.
Professor Hyneman provides depth analysis of the training programs through the
eyes of a university political science professor. He briefly discusses the employment
of CA teams in Germany but speaks specifically to the distinction between the
training for a generalist and training for specialists. Good base document for
researching civil affairs training in World War II.
Department of Defense Directive 2000.13, Civil Affairs, March 11, 2014.
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/200013_2014_correction_b.pdf
DOD instruction 2000.13 updates policy and assigned responsibilities for CAO
within the DOD. This directive is useful in that is specifies what tasks, roles and
responsibilities the DOD expects from Civil Affairs. Specifies the responsibilities of
OSD, the Service Secretaries and the GCCs to include SOCOM.
Provides better examples of CAO than JP 3-57. Does not address CA role in special
warfare (IW, UW, etc…)