Remodeling Partner Capacity

Overview of U.S. Counterterrorism Security Assistance

International cooperation has always been a critical element of counterterrorism, but it became considerably more important after 9/11. Security assistance is a central component of the U.S. counterterrorism strategy to incentivize cooperation and build the capacity of partner nations to conduct their own operations against terrorist groups. Building partner capacity (BPC) became the catchall term for a wide array of security assistance programs developed for this purpose. The nucleus of the BPC effort began in Iraq, where the escalating insurgency led the Bush administration to devise a military plan that would train the Iraqi army to assume responsibility for security as quickly as possible. U.S. officials emphasized the mantra that as “Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.”¹ As al Qaeda expanded and the terrorist threat spread during the last decade, building the capacity of partners outside Iraq and Afghanistan became increasingly important. Congress created a spate of new authorities and funding streams to meet the growing demand for assistance to build up partner forces so they could counter security threats at home and contribute to international missions. 

The Obama administration made working with and through partner nations a cornerstone of its counterterrorism strategy. This approach was informed by awareness that unilateral, large-footprint military operations were neither effective nor sustainable when it came to achieving U.S. counterterrorism objectives. These types of efforts have proved tremendously expensive, both in political and fiscal terms, and put considerable strain on the U.S. military. Large American deployments are also a potential recruiting tool for terrorist organizations and can act as a catalyst for opposing militant groups to unite. Burden sharing on counterterrorism reduces the costs and risks for the United States and bolsters international stability more generally.

Moreover, while the consequences of terrorism are often global and have a direct effect on the United States, many of the sources of terrorist violence are driven by local security and governance vacuums and social, political, and economic conditions that enable the creation of safe havens and lead to radicalization. In these instances, it is usually a local partner – not the United States – that will have the best understanding of the local landscape and can be most effective in addressing the problem, with the United States providing appropriate training, support, and enablers. The United States still has a critical role to play in this dynamic. Indeed, it is currently leading the international coalition against the Islamic State and working “by, with, and through” its regional and local partners.²

Congress and the executive branch worked together to create a number of different funding streams and authorities related to CT-oriented security assistance. Early in the post-9/11 period, the primary CT security assistance authority was Section 1206 of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). By the 2015 NDAA, Section 1206 was codified as 10 U.S.C. 2282. Under this authority, the secretary of defense was authorized to implement security assistance programs that train and equip foreign military and maritime security forces. The purpose of the 1206/2282 authority was to support U.S. CT missions globally in military and stability missions by improving the capacity of foreign partner forces to support these missions.³ Through 2014 a total of $2.2 billion in 1206 spending has funded bilateral train-and-equip programs in at least 40 countries, providing operational assistance (surveillance and reconnaissance systems, small arms, rifles, night vision sights) and logistic support (vehicles, aircraft, and limited maintenance).⁴ There is now a $350 million a year authorization for 10 U.S.C. 2282 funding though additional monies can also be transferred for use under the authority.⁵

In 2012, Congress established the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF) through Section 1207 of the NDAA. The GSCF was authorized through fiscal year (FY) 2017 as a pilot program for similar efforts as those under 2282, but with State Department in the lead and DoD authorized to transfer up to $200 million a year into the fund.⁶ 

Nevertheless, both 1206 (now 2282) and GSCF authorities were considered to be insufficient for unexpected crises, which led to the creation of the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF).⁷ The CTPF is designed to provide interagency funding to support emergency security assistance programs to partner country security forces and other groups fighting terrorism. The funding provided under the CTPF is to assist these state and non-state partners to conduct, support, or facilitate CT missions and crisis response, and includes the distribution of CTPF funds focused on U.S. Central Command (USCENTCOM) and U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) areas of responsibility.⁸ CTPF funds are disbursed under other authorities, and thus far all of the funds ($1.1 billion in FY 2016 and a request for $1 billion for FY 2017) have been distributed under 1206/2282.⁹

The proliferation of authorities has created confusion about the connective tissue between individual programs and how they should be deployed to achieve broader strategic effects. The Senate version of the 2017 NDAA that passed in spring 2016 sought to address this issue. It includes a number of new proposals to modify and expand several existing DoD authorities, including 2282, and to allow for potentially greater DoD engagement with foreign internal security forces.¹⁰ Proponents argue that these reforms will make security assistance more efficient and effective, while opponents are concerned that it may marginalize the State Department’s role and increasingly present the U.S. military as the face of U.S. security sector engagement overseas, including with non-military partners.

Challenges Associated with U.S. Counterterrorism Assistance

Having a meaningful impact through CT-related security assistance is no easy task. By definition, CT security assistance programs are frequently implemented in difficult environments in countries that are either unstable as a result of internal socio-political conflict or under threat due to the ability of a terrorist organization to find popular support among a subset of the local population.¹¹ In many contexts, the ability of U.S. CT security assistance programming to have a positive impact on the behavior of partner security forces engaged in CT operations is likely to be determined more by local socio-political, economic, and governance conditions than by the agency of U.S. implementers and by the interests of those partners.¹² Even understanding these caveats, several U.S. government-commissioned studies have criticized how the United States implements CT-related security assistance programs.¹³ 

The first of these criticisms is that there is no standard guideline for determining the goals of CT security assistance programs, particularly partner capacity-building training, or how these programs fit into broader U.S. foreign policy objectives. Moreover, in many of these complex cases the United States has interests beyond purely counterterrorism, and those interests often impact decisions on aid and overall assessments of the situation. If specific objectives are not outlined at the start as part of a clearly delineated theory of change for the use of assistance, then these other interests tend to bias and confuse decisionmaking. It is precisely in these highly complex situations that the U.S. government needs to be clearer about the order of its priorities and ensure that its efforts will contribute to longer-term objectives. However, this often does not happen. Presidential Policy Directive 23 (PPD 23), issued by the Obama administration in 2013, was a first step toward providing implementers and policymakers with guidance on how to adjudicate among competing goals and timelines. But these efforts are still nascent and inconsistently applied.

Instead, there is often a heavy bias toward near-term policy objectives such as improving military interoperability, building tactical military capacity, or securing other forms of immediate counterterrorism assistance and increasing U.S. influence with the governments of partner countries. These seemingly more-urgent priorities come at the expense of important long-term issues such as the achievement of viable political outcomes in unstable countries, the professionalization of security forces, and respect for human rights, which are all key to the long-term success of counterterrorism strategies. In some cases these near-term interests may be judged more important than long-term professionalization and stabilization, but these tradeoffs are rarely analyzed or discussed before security assistance decisions are made.¹⁴ Such analysis is essential, since in other cases near-term and long-term imperatives are compatible, but the planning process fails to connect the two or identify milestones for long-term goals that can help implementers stay on track. 

The second criticism is that once a decision is made to provide support, there is little follow-up evaluation of whether programs are achieving the goals for which they were designed. Critically, there are no standard metrics for assessing the effectiveness and impact of CT security assistance programs. While some monitoring and evaluation is conducted it is not applied or used consistently, and there is no routine evaluation stage in the policy process across departments. Many agencies implementing programs intended to realize PPD 23 objectives do not have sophisticated AM&E systems. The State Department’s AM&E protocol is very decentralized and therefore implemented inconsistently across the agency. The Department of Defense, which had no program in place historically, is currently designing policy mechanisms and an organizational architecture to assess, monitor, and evaluate all security cooperation programs in a more centralized fashion. The current plan calls for delineating objectives for security cooperation at the outset, along with clear metrics for assessing both inputs and outcomes. It is too early to assess the efficacy of this effort, which has not yet been implemented. It is also unclear precisely how the DoD monitoring effort will align with programs at the State Department. The absence of a unified rubric could create complications and mismeasurement, especially if DoD efforts do not account for nondefense issues, such as addressing poor governance. A principal aim of this report is to provide insights from recipient countries to inform the efforts underway in the U.S. government and reinforce the importance of developing a comprehensive AM&E effort that pays attention to balance between short-term security issues and long-term goals. 

Summary Recommendations for Improving U.S. Counterterrorism Security Assistance

Put More Focus on Internal Threats

• Devote more to improving the capacity, capabilities, and professionalism of domestic security services and internal security instead of focusing almost  singularly on external threats.
• Internal security assistance efforts should be led by the State Department with congressional support and coordination with relevant USG security agencies. 
• Leverage the lessons learned by local and international NGOs that have been the most effective implementers of this type of assistance.
• Follow through on the new Countering Violent Extremism strategy’s call to “empower and amplify locally credible voices” while lowering the U.S. government’s profile and increasing transparency.
• Assistance for border security should remain a focus as this is an area where the United States has been particularly effective.

Invest in AM&E and Develop Metrics That Measure Outputs

• The National Security Council (NSC) should coordinate the development of a set of shared interagency metrics for measuring the success of CT security  assistance programs. 
• Metrics should be designed to measure outcomes rather than simply verifying inputs and to look at usage rates, retention rates, exercises, and surveys as measurements.
• Three percent to five percent of the cost of each program should be dedicated to assessment, monitoring, and evaluation, significantly increasing current investments.
• Mine the knowledge of local private and nongovernmental project implementers when designing evaluation criteria. 
• Make programming more transparent by releasing details of objectives, recipient agencies, and funding levels to enable outside monitoring and evaluation.

Effective AM&E Must Start With Clear Objectives Upfront

• Have clear and realistic objectives upfront and be prepared to invest the necessary resources in determining whether the program works. 
• Clearly distinguish between objectives designed to build capacity and promote reform, versus objectives such as relationship building or securing access. 
• In the planning phase, identify a realistic time frame in which the United States seeks to realize its objectives.