Historically, the U.S. military's Special Operations Forces (SOF) have had primary responsibility for training, advising and assisting foreign military forces. Today, although this mission has not been completely relegated to conventional forces, the National Security Strategies of the current and previous administrations direct the U.S. military services to organise, train and equip themselves to carry out these activities on a larger scale with conventional (non-SOF) forces. This responsibility in its broad sense of building the capacity of partner states has been termed security force assistance (SFA). This book presents the distillation of best practices and lessons learned from the contemporary operating environment in Iraq and Afghanistan with regard to security force assistance, and offers recommendations that build upon recent initiatives within the Department of Defense (DoD) to create a comprehensive approach to improve U.S. SFA.

Current operations, demands of persistent conflict, and enduring U.S. national security interests underscore the immediate and continuing need to improve U.S. Security Force Assistance (SFA) efforts. The frequency and importance of such activities throughout U.S. history demonstrate that the current requirements are not anomalies. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been challenged to accomplish key national security goals due to a lack of capability and capacity to effectively advise, utilize, and partner with foreign security forces. To meet this challenge, this paper offers recommendations that build upon recent initiatives within the Department of Defense (DoD) to create a comprehensive approach to improve U.S. SFA. At the heart of the recommendations is a DoD-level organizational approach to institutionalize SFA activities effectively and to facilitate interagency and multinational unity of effort. We intend to adapt current DoD processes that encourage the ad hoc approach and implement a single DoD-level integrating organization.

Current operations, demands of persistent conflict, and enduring U.S. national security interests underscore the immediate and continuing need to improve U.S. Security Force Assistance (SFA) efforts. The frequency and importance of such activities throughout U.S. history demonstrate that the current requirements are not anomalies. Since September 11, 2001, the United States has been challenged to accomplish key national security goals due to a lack of capability and capacity to effectively advise, utilize, and partner with foreign security forces. To meet this challenge, this paper offers recommendations that build upon recent initiatives within the Department of Defense (DoD) to create a comprehensive approach to improve U.S. SFA. At the heart of the recommendations is a DoD-level organizational approach to institutionalize SFA activities effectively and to facilitate interagency and multinational unity of effort. We intend to adapt current DoD processes that encourage the ad hoc approach and implement a single DoD-level integrating organization.

This manuscript describes how US military advisors prepare for and conduct operations in war. Through two separate year-long combat tours as a military advisor in Iraq, the author brings true vignettes into modern military strategy and operational art. Further, the author provides multiple perspectives in command relationships. Through years of personal experience, direct interviews, and Warfighting knowledge, the author challenges conventionally accepted truths and establishes a new standard for understanding the impact of American advisors on the modern battleground.

In an era of persistent conflict, the United States supports the internal defense and development of international partners, regardless of whether those partners are highly developed and stable or less developed and emerging. While many of these partners are nations, they can also include alliances, coalitions, and regional organizations. U.S. support to these partners ranges from providing humanitarian assistance to major combat operations. U.S. support includes conducting conflict transformation, bolstering partner legitimacy, and building partner capacity. A vital part of these three aspects of U.S. support is assisting partner security forces. Security force assistance (SFA) is not new for Army forces. In fact, General George Washington's Inspector General of the Army acted as an advisor for Army forces. Baron Friedrick Wilhelm von Steuben instilled discipline and professionalism into an army that previously lacked formalized training. His 1779 Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States, adapted from the Prussian army, formed the doctrinal backbone of the Continental Army throughout the Revolutionary War. Additionally, the lineage of the Army's operations field manual, FM 3-0, can be traced to this document. As a benefactor of advisors such as von Steuben, the Army has since undertaken what is called SFA several times throughout its history. Army doctrine defines security force assistance as the unified action to generate, employ, and sustain local, host-nation, or regional security forces in support of a legitimate authority (FM 3-07). SFA is part of the FM 3- 0 construct of full spectrum operations. Similarly, it is conducted across the spectrum of conflict or in any of the operational themes. SFA is normally part of a larger security sector reform effort, while in other instances, SFA is not tied to reform but to building partner capacity. Three general situations exist in which SFA may occur: an internally focused bilateral relationship, an externally focused bilateral relationship, and a multilateral relationship. Consequently, SFA supports the appropriate partner's plans. When SFA supports a host nation, it also supports that host nation's strategy. If SFA supports a host nation's externally focused efforts, it must support the host nation's national security strategy. SFA may support regional security forces, such as those of the African Union or the Organization of American States. In these cases, SFA supports that organization's plans. This field manual (FM) is the Army's doctrinal publication for security force assistance (SFA). It provides doctrinal guidance and direction for how U.S. forces contribute to SFA. It focuses on the brigade combat team (BCT) conducting SFA and advising foreign security forces. It is based on lessons learned from previous advising efforts and recent combat operations with a view to the future. It supports the Army Education System instruction on the theory and conduct of SFA. The two primary audiences for this manual are leaders in BCTs conducting SFA and Soldiers assigned as advisors. The BCT is the largest fixed tactical organization and the key formation of the Army's modular organization. Army modularity allows commanders to add selective units to assist the BCT as it conducts SFA. The BCT and higher echelons provide the framework for advisors to function and accomplish the mission—developing foreign security forces and, when appropriate, working by, with, and through foreign security forces to achieve the desired end state of the host nation's internal defense and development. Thus, Soldiers assigned as advisors are the key element of SFA. This FM provides the conceptual framework for conventional forces to conduct SFA within the construct of full spectrum operations, across the spectrum of conflict. It addresses SFA at operational and tactical levels.

This paper examines the current Building Partner Capacity and Security Force Assistance capabilities and capacities within the United States Army as well as Department of Defense. The current operational environment calls for us to look at history, policy, doctrine and other academic proposals to identify capability and capacity gaps. As the General Purpose Force looks forward to expanding roles in Irregular Warfare, Foreign Internal Defense and Security Assistance, does the U.S. Army have the proper force structure and minimal capability to fight and win the counterinsurgency of the future? This paper analyzes this construct and provides a framework for identifying proponency, institutionalizing lessons learned from OIF and OEF as well as providing military, police and governance structure as a tool for global engagement. This new structural paradigm will help the United States gain access, influence and build capacity throughout this new world order.