Assessing the Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund

 

The most substantive proposal in President Obama’s national security speech at West Point earlier this week is a new Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund (CTPF). The initiative would amplify ongoing efforts to build the capacity of partnered foreign militaries to confront insecurity related to terrorism in more places and with greater resources. This approach, which is a deepening of the so-called ‘light footprint’ model, could be pivotal in further adapting U.S. security policy towards evolving terrorist threats without having to engage American forces directly in armed conflict, particularly with respect to those threats that are more regional in scope and do not constitute the kind of imminent, direct threat to the United States that the President has established as a threshold for unilateral U.S. military action. While the CTPF initiative deserves support, there are a number of serious challenges to implementing it effectively and responsibly. Most immediately, congressional approval will depend upon better teamwork between the Administration and Congress to clarify aspects of the program. While the initiative is currently proposed to be funded through Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) accounts, this approach is problematic and better options exist. Moreover, if the fund were to go into effect, successful implementation will lean heavily on simultaneously addressing the local sources of instability in target regions – not merely boosting partner military capacity – and carefully considering human rights concerns.

The CTPF supports the U.S. transition to a ‘light footprint’ approach to counterterrorism, allowing the United States to adapt to regional threats while limiting U.S. direct action. The CTPF “will provide the flexibility and resources required to respond to emerging needs as terrorist threats around the world continue to evolve” and “allow us to pursue a more sustainable and effective approach to combating terrorism that focuses on empowering and enabling our partners around the globe,” according to the White House. The CTPF will allow the United States to respond through partners in regions where terrorist threats are still nascent, making it a fundamentally proactive and preventive measure. “The President’s CTPF is really an important expansion of an existing DoD training mission and will significantly enhance our Special Forces’ capacity to export a critical American skill set,” said NSN Senior Advisor Major General Paul Eaton (ret.). “Assisting our friends and allies in developing their own security forces directly supports our national interests and world security.” [White House 5/28/14. Paul Eaton 5/30/14]

 Success of the CTPF will depend upon greater clarity, teamwork with Congress, and appropriate funding streams that are sustainable:

 Clarifying connection to similar, but less robustly funded programs: Politico analyzed four other efforts that are similar in nature to the proposed CTPF, saying, “The main difference: This new fund would be much bigger.” For example the “1206 Fund,” which is for DoD “to train and equip foreign military forces for two specified purposes: counterterrorism and stability operations — and foreign security forces for counterterrorism operations,” is capped at $350 million per year. For further context on the extent to which the proposed $5 billion of CTPF funding would amplify efforts already underway and current capabilities, the budget request of U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM) for FY2015 was $7.7 billion. Lt. Col. John Nagl (ret.), who helped write the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, explains, “There is no doubt that demand for Socom forces exceeds supply, and will likely continue to; these funds will allow them to be employed in more places, more effectively.” [John Nagl via the Tampa Tribune, 5/28/14]

Better teamwork with Congress is a must: Some members of Congress have reacted with skepticism, making clear that higher levels of congressional outreach will be necessary for proposed funding to gain sufficient traction on the Hill. Gordon Adams of the Stimson Center, who is a former top national security budget official in the Clinton Administration, explains, “they haven’t worked through the details. The worst thing is to announce an initiative and never to have told the committees of jurisdiction.” Adams added, “Congress’s instinctive reaction when surprised is to rise up in resistance.” [Gordon Adams via the Daily Beast, 5/29/14]

Getting the funding streams right by not overloading the OCO: Currently, the fund is planned to be attached to the Administration’s Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) funding. But OCO does not appear to be an appropriate source of funds. The CTPF does not propose to fund combat operations, and comparable funds from other agencies draw primarily from base funding, such as the State Department’s Foreign Military Financing program, of which $5.1 billion was requested through base funding, and about one-tenth that amount was requested through OCO. Misusing OCO funds for activities that should be in the base budget presents sustainability problems for activities shoehorned into OCO. Even Rep. Buck McKeon’s (R-CA) mark of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) expressed concern: “The committee is concerned about the large portion of enduring activities, training, sustainment, and other military requirements being funded through amounts authorized to be appropriated for OCO.” [Chairman’s Mark, Sec. 332]

Effective implementation of the CTPF depends upon addressing the social and political drivers of instability – not just increasing the military capacity of partner nations. As coalition experience in Afghanistan has highlighted, counterterrorism and counterinsurgency depend upon effectively addressing political, economic, and social factors that drive militancy and insecurity. Janine Davidson of the Council on Foreign Relations, who previously served as Director for Stability Operations Capabilities in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, explains, “This could be money well spent if it focuses on holistic security sector initiatives to include rule-of-law programs and institution-building.” Lt. Col. Scott Mann (ret.), who helped implement the Village Stability Operations program in Afghanistan, adds, “The reality is that most of the areas [where CTPF operations would likely take place], Nigeria, or Somalia or Afghanistan or Pakistan, the strategic safe havens terror groups go to are clan and tribal areas….We need to work on the grievances that are the drivers of instability.” [Janine Davison, 5/29/14. Scott Mann via the Tampa Tribune, 4/28/14]

Responsibly-implemented training programs funded by the CTPF will have to take into account human rights concerns, in accordance with the “Leahy law”. The Leahy law (or laws, as there are State and DoD versions), as described in a January 2014 Congressional Research Service report, “prohibit[s] assistance to foreign military and other security units credibly believed to be involved in a gross violation of human rights.” The report notes that these restrictions only apply to “security assistance funding authorized by the FAA [Foreign Assistance Act] and AECA [Arms Export Control Act] or programs funded through DOD appropriations.” Whether funds for the CTPF are allocated from the OCO fund or elsewhere, the program will – and should – be subject to these restrictions, which serve as a check against the United States inadvertently facilitating or seeming to condone atrocities through the misuse of U.S. equipment and training. As Under Secretary of State for Civilian Security, Democracy and Human Rights Sarah Sewall explained in testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Committee last week, “We do this because the most effective counterterrorism policies and practices are those that respect human rights and are underpinned by the rule of law.” By adhering to the Leahy law, the United States incentivizes partner militaries to commit themselves to stronger human rights practices and protections. [CRS, 1/29/14. Sarah Sewall, 5/21/14]