Rethink, But Don’t Dismiss U.S. Training of Foreign Troops by Robert Egnell, Kings of War.
On Friday last week the Obama White House released a new policy on U.S. Security Sector Assistance. The goals of the new policy are to “help partner nations build the sustainable capacity to address common security challenges; promote partner support for the policies and interests of the United States; strengthen collective security and multinational defense arrangements and organizations; and promote universal values.” The policy is nevertheless released in the midst of an increasingly intense debate regarding the impact of training and assisting activities in places such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Mali. Then the New York Times published a debate on the topic with the title “A Lesson in Futility for the Pentagon?” However, rather than dismissing these activities, a more interesting discussion should involve the effectiveness of these missions in relation to the conduct and approaches employed, as well as how train and assist activities serve the broader U.S. national security agenda...
Comments
"...while lip service is paid to long-term commitments and sustainability, there seems to be a clear preference for quick and dirty – clear “accomplishments” and withdrawal." Exactly what we are experiencing now in Afghanistan (at least where I am).....hurry, hurry, hurry, and let's get outta here. Train to time, not to standard.
If security sector reform and SFA are to be an integral part of our global strategy, we need to accept the fact that such efforts will take far more time than most would like. Additionally, I'm not convinced that regionally aligned brigades are the way to do this as most (not all) folks in conventional forces seem quite focused on doing what they know = creating "them" in our image, even when we know they cannot sustain it. Better to leave such efforts to SF (not SOF) and contractors with the appropriate background for such duty.
I agree with Dr. Egnell and I would add that too often training of foreign troops has been along the lines of "random acts of touching." The first question that should be asked when training foreign troops is what is the strategy that this effort supports.
We are often fond of using anecdotes about how training of foreign forces has provided an unexpected return on investment sometime in the future (I am guilty of this myself). However, that does not mean that we should just train foreign troops in the hopes of someday receiving an unexpected benefit. The training must be part of an overall strategy, with a specific campaign, based on assessment that provides an understanding of the nature of the problems, that is designed to support US interests while aligning with the interests of our friends, partners, and allies with whom we are training. And the strategy must be in synch with the national security strategy, the regional strategy of the mission strategic plan of the US Chief of Mission in the specific host nation.
There is also a paradox here. We often criticize ourselves for training forces in our own image with equipment and techniques that are suited for the US way of war. Often this is inappropriate but many times we do it anyway. However, in many cases this is exactly what the host nation wants – it wants its military to be like the US military and they ask for this specific training and equipment. We have to be good advisers and work to manage expectations and by conducting a combined assessment determine what the host nation forces need and are capable of employing in terms of military equipment and tactics, techniques and procedures.
But as Professor Egnell recommends, rethink, don't abort.
I also think it is interesting to note that Professor Egnell rightly begins with the new US policy on security sector reform, unlike many of the commentators in the NY Times debate on a "Lesson in Futility."