eas of concentration for a community that appears to
accept its institutional limits while striving to address
the larger demand in the operational environment.
Institutional Trends in Civil Affairs
The recent past sends mixed signals about the future of Civil Affairs. The U.S. Marine Corps continued
expansion of its CA capability – at 900 personnel it is
twice the size it was in 2004. Although the Marines
added Active Component elements to their CA force
structure in that time, CA is unlikely to become a primary military occupational specialty for the USMC.
The Navy, on the other hand, in 2014 entirely disestablished the force structure it had launched in 2006,
without clear indication how the capability would be
provided by others to meet demand for it. And the
Army, home to the largest number of CA forces, remained divided along the lines set forth by the 2006
“divorce” that separated Active and Reserve Components between U.S. Army Special Operations Command and U.S. Army Reserve Command. That division
was further complicated by the Army’s establishment
of the Active Component 85th CA Brigade reporting to
Forces Command, all the while sustaining proponent
office with the U.S. Special Operations Command.
The Army established Civil Affairs as a branch in 2007
without providing other features of a general officer
branch within the Army, or a branch schoolhouse. As
outgoing U.S. Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Commanding General Jeffrey Jacobs noted in his
2014 farewell address, three different force provider
headquarters control Army CA units based in the continental United States, and a Special Operations proponent determines doctrine, training and equipment
for a force that is mostly conventional.
24