Cessation of Training Support and Enhanced Military Aid: Examining the Impact of Reducing the Army's Security Force Aid Ability
The Pentagon's decision to shutter two of the Army's six Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs) and downsize the Security Force Assistance Command (SFAC) has caused a stir in military circles, raising questions about the future of US military strategy.
Established to professionalize and specialize U.S. Army advisory efforts, SFABs have proven their worth across the competition-crisis-conflict continuum. They have shaped the battlespace before, during, and after conflicts through assessment, support, liaison, and advising operations.
Historical precedents, such as the advisory groups in the Korean War, demonstrate the strategic value of SFABs. These brigades have enabled geographic combatant commanders and Army service component commands to understand conditions on the ground, providing granular visibility into the readiness of allied and partner units.
SFAB advisors have been instrumental in enabling partner units to leverage US assets, such as calling in American long-range fires, and buying time for US reinforcements to arrive. Their work feeds directly into theater campaign plans and CJADC2 (combined joint all-domain command and control) networks, enabling host-nation brigades to plug seamlessly into American-led missions.
SFABs have also shown their ability to pivot from advising roles to actively regenerating and scaling up a partner's fighting force during conflicts. They can strengthen a host nation's institutional base, training centers, logistics hubs, and military schools, creating a self-sustaining pipeline for recruiting, equipping, and fielding new units in a drawn-out war.
However, the decision to reduce the number of SFABs and downsize their command headquarters comes despite considerable operational and doctrinal evidence supporting their strategic value. Institutional ambivalence and shrinking personnel authorizations indicate uncertainty about the future of SFABs, a move that critics argue might weaken U.S. military influence and partnership effectiveness globally.
Currently, the remaining SFABs, such as the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Brigades, remain active and continue to conduct training and advisory missions, including multinational exercises aligned with NATO standards. However, the overall advisory command structure is being reduced, potentially limiting future scalability and operational reach.
It's important to note that the US military has spent over $400 billion on security force assistance since 2000, but many foreign units have "cracked" once US personnel depart, as seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. This raises concerns about the long-term impact of reducing the number of SFABs and the potential consequences for US military strategy.
In summary, the current status is a reduction in the number of SFABs and a significant downsizing of their command headquarters, with future plans indicating a leaner advisory force. This approach faces criticism given SFABs’ demonstrated strategic value and historic success in military advising and partnership development. The debate continues as military leaders and policymakers grapple with finding the right balance between cost efficiency and strategic effectiveness in US military operations.
[1] Department of Defense, "Security Force Assistance Brigades," accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.army.mil/sfab/.
[2] National Defense University, "Security Force Assistance: A New Paradigm for U.S. Military Advisory Efforts," accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.ndu.edu/press/news/2021/2021-05-18-security-force-assistance-a-new-paradigm-for-u-s-military-advisory-efforts.html.
[3] U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, "Field Manual 3-22: Army Security Force Assistance," accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/3-22.pdf.
[4] U.S. Army Europe, "Exercise Warfighter 24-5," accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.eur.army.mil/Resources/News/Article/2721059/exercise-warfighter-24-5/.
[5] U.S. Army Europe, "Training for NATO: Division in the Dirt," accessed June 1, 2023, https://www.eur.army.mil/Resources/News/Article/2657022/training-for-nato-division-in-the-dirt/.
- The decision to reduce the number of Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFABs) and downsize the Security Force Assistance Command (SFAC) has sparked debates within military circles, as historical precedents demonstrate the strategic value of these units in military warfare.
- SFABs have showcased their strategic role by shaping the battlespace, providing granular visibility into allied and partner units, and assisting them in leveraging US assets during operations, making them crucial components of US military strategy.
- With an ability to pivot from advisory roles to regenerating partner's fighting force during conflicts, SFABs strengthen host nations' institutional base, enhancing their readiness and capabilities in extended warfare.
- However, this downsizing move comes in the face of substantial operational and doctrinal evidence supporting the strategic value of SFABs, with critics arguing it could weaken US military influence and partnership effectiveness globally.
- Despite the significant funds allocated to security force assistance since 2000, questions arise about the long-term impact of reducing SFAB numbers, exemplified by foreign units that struggled after US personnel departed in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.
- As the remaining SFABs continue their training and advisory missions, questions remain about the future of SFABs, sparking discussions among military leaders, policymakers, and industry analysts about achieving the right balance between cost efficiency and strategic effectiveness in US military operations.
