Small footprint, small payoff: The military effectiveness of security force assistance

After 15 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, many now see 'small-footprint' security force assistance (SFA) - training, advising and equipping allied militaries - as an alternative to large US ground-force commitments. Yet, its actual military efficacy has been little studied. This paper...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of strategic studies Vol. 41; no. 1-2; pp. 89 - 142
Main Authors Biddle, Stephen, Macdonald, Julia, Baker, Ryan
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London Routledge 23.02.2018
Taylor & Francis Ltd
Subjects
advising
Afghanistan War
allies
defense policy
Efficacy
Footprints
Military
Military aid
military assistance
Military effectiveness
Misalignment
Security
strategy
Training
Upper bounds
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:After 15 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, many now see 'small-footprint' security force assistance (SFA) - training, advising and equipping allied militaries - as an alternative to large US ground-force commitments. Yet, its actual military efficacy has been little studied. This paper seeks to fill this gap. We find important limitations on SFA's military utility, stemming from agency problems arising from systematic interest misalignment between the US and its typical partners. SFA's achievable upper bound is modest and attainable only if US policy is intrusive and conditional, which it rarely is. For SFA, small footprints will usually mean small payoffs.
ISSN:0140-2390
1743-937X
DOI:10.1080/01402390.2017.1307745