Streamlining US Army Security Cooperation: Why Coordination is Key to Global Influence

Anthony Messenger,  Cary Hyde 

Source Link

Coordination can mean the difference between success and failure in any military operation. Operation Eagle Claw, the ill-fated 1980 hostage rescue mission in Iran, famously exposed the dangers of disjointed efforts between military services—leading to major reforms in how US special operations forces and the larger joint force operate together today. A similar problem is unfolding in Army Security Cooperation efforts right now across advisory with both conventional and irregular partner nation forces.

Despite having three complementary organizations (Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs), Army Special Operations Forces (ARSOF), and the National Guard Bureau’s State Partnership Program (SPP)), these units often operate independently and miss opportunities to operate more efficiently and draw on their unique strengths. Imagine a situation where an SFAB team unknowingly conducted the same training in the same city as a State Partnership Program, while just across the border, an ARSOF detachment struggled with a logistics challenge the SFAB could have helped solve. This is not fiction, but one of many repetitive scenarios that both authors have observed in 50 years of experience across multiple combatant commands. If only this multitude of Security Cooperation efforts had been coordinated in advance across time, space, and purpose.

Centralized Security Cooperation coordination ideally occurs within the combatant commands’ campaign plan management construct, but this mechanism is often ineffective and lacks transparency between the Army service component commands (ASCC), theater special operations commands (TSOC), and National Guard SPP. This coordination deficiency prevents unified action to generate, employ, and sustain foreign security forces, thus inhibiting Army effectiveness towards achieving US national security objectives. The US Army must streamline its command and control structure and more efficiently synchronize activities within its different areas of operations. This article explores solutions to better integrate these efforts—because when it comes to building partnerships and strengthening deterrence, the Army can no longer afford to let its left hand operate without knowing what the right is doing.