Security Sector Reform SSR & FID (Catch All)

[Rob Thornton]

While we now have a doctrinal definition of Security Force Assistance (SFA) forthcoming in the Army FM 3-07, and we have a Joint Proponent for SFA in U.S. SOCOM, there is still a good deal of discussion about what SFA is and what is the purpose of it. There are still different terms which get used as synonyms but in fact may have degrees of limiting functions based on the object which receives the action, the purpose to which the action was initiated, or the nature of the action itself.

The policy objective and the requirements derived from realizing it will shape the form of assistance provided. The object of assistance could be any type of security force & the assistance could be provided by the range of Joint, Inter-Agency, Inter-Governmental, and Multi-National Partners.

The security forces assisted could range from a regional organization, or those belonging to a state. The environment could be permissive, or non-permissive. The type of assistance itself could be broad, it could be minimal, or it could be extensive such as assistance during combat operations. The purposes could range from helping a state extend its ability to govern its defined territorial space, to protect itself from domestic and foreign threats, or to contribute security capacity to a regional security arrangement or organization. What is defining is that the USG conducts SFA in support of a legitimate authority. Titular authorities’ aside, part of what makes SFA comprehensive is a focus on understanding the requirements of the partner and the nature of the partner’s systems.

SFA as an approach is meant to assist Commanders and Planners in understanding the requirements and consequences of assisting a partner in reforming and/or developing their security forces in depth. It helps them get beyond a “train & equip” approach and into considering the nature of the partner’s environment. Some examples:

-With regard to a state, it might mean considering how reforming some existing component or developing some new capability within that partner’s security sector may enhance its security.

-With regard to developing a regional security organization’s capacity it may mean considering the impact on the donor states’ security sectors when those regional organizations are committed to regional purposes – and helping them develop the capabilities and capacities that allow them to more fully participate in that organization.

SFA’s aim is to assist the partner in reforming capabilities to make them more effective and/or efficient where possible, and to develop new capabilities and capacities where required to help that partner better achieve its security objectives.

Through this understanding of the partner’s security sector, the requirements and authorities required to realize the policy objectives - be they in time, types of assistance, exemptions or amendments to standing codes, etc. can be better articulated to USG leadership so they can understand and align their expectations. This is important because while by law the military may normally by standing authorities be prevented or limited from engaging with some aspects of a partner’s security sector, the scope of the task, standing commitments elsewhere, lack of capacity in the recognized agency, or the immediacy of the policy may require temporary or permanent changes to accomplish the objective. Having a holistic understanding of the partner’s security sector and its environment help us from learning in and ad-hoc fashion and committing our resources in a piecemeal fashion that is neither effective nor efficient, and risks the policy objective by protracting involvement and possibly exacerbating the problem.

A big part of what JCISFA actually does for the commands, offices and agencies it supports is advise them on SFA issues so they can better understand and consider what is relevant and what is not. As such I have attached a 6 step method of framing a security sector. Like the speak of CTCs – it is “a way”, not the only way.

Like always I wanted to put it up here because as a Community the SWC has allot of folks who are working through the same or related problem sets. Every other week I've been up here in D.C. going to another workshop or experiment where these issues are coming up. I'd be slacking if I did not put up the thoughts so more folks can consider it then just the folks in a single room.

Best Regards, Rob

[marct]

Nice brief document, Rob. Just out of interest, you make a point about defining the functions of the security sector (and its component). Are you also including or thinking about including a component to look for functional analogs?

Marc

[John T. Fishel]

Rob--

In your doc, I see what appears to me to be some confusion between structure and function. So, my first question would be, "what are the functions of the security sector?" My list would include (but not necessarily be limited to):
- external defense
- border control
- coastal/maritime law enforcement & patrol
- internal defense
- foreign intel
- counterintel
- riot control
- traffic policing
- local policing
- regional policing
- national criminal investigation
- security adjunication
- imprisonment (and other punishment to include execution)
My next question would be, "What structures (organizations/institutions) can or should perform these (and other security) functions?" In Panama, we (the US Forces Liaison Group and the Panamanian Ministry of Government and Justice) addressed most of these functions. Panama decided to essentially ignore the external defense function leaving it to the US. It opted for a National Police to deal with local policing, traffic plicing, riot control, border control, etc., a National Maritime Service to perform the functions of a Coast Guard, a National Air Service to provide transport to security forces, a Judicial Technical Police for criminal investigation, and an Institutional Protective Service (SPI) for VIP protection that evolved into a paramilitary force. Note that several functions were not addressed either by Americans or Panamanians. Note too that the SPI evolved in ways that its American sponsors neither desired nor approved of. Point being that the HN and SF being assisted have the decisive votes.

So, going back to my starting point: SFA needs to assess the security functions required (theoretically) by the HN, those the HN wants or can be convinced are required, those it can perform adequately, and those it needs help on. Then the SFA assessment must address the organizations that perform or could perform those functions. Only then can one design a plan to strengthen/reform current organizations and develop new ones. Oh, yeah, in Panama (and I expect lots of other places) we had to do all of this simulataneously along with designing and adapting USG military and civilian organizations to the SFA role. It is a wonder we did as well as we did! (helped that we had Panamanians as our counterparts.)

Cheers

JohnT

[Rob Thornton]

Marc,
I'm going to have to ask if what you mean by functional analogs are those outputs that share similarities with the outputs of of other functions in the system, or in related systems. I think that is one of the things the ongoing assessment has to account for because that is how you get to a point of understanding. The only problem I see is the natural bias we all use when evaluating and assessing. You could even be seeing similar outputs but the purpose they serve could be different then the one you attribute to it and that could lead you to some bad assumptions. This is one of the reasons a good assessment is so difficult and may require a substantially sized element to do.

Could you send me an example or put one up here - I think it'd help us think more about it.
Best, Rob

[Rob Thornton]

Hi John,
I think you are right about the sequencing. I was initially using the brief to help articulate the security sector with an understanding that they'd already considered the broader systemic environment e.g. pol/econ/sec in this case and made some thoughts about how the functions of those identified sectors - that is important because they can vary both in function and ratio based on the broader environment. A client state of a powerful neighbor, or one with strong alliances may not require the structures as one that is isolated or is the proximate neighbor to a power unaligned neighbor. The functions you list out should start to emerge as you explore the existing structures - in some cases both the visible and the not so visible ones - a structure may not be only an organization, but a structured relationship

The second question gets to one of the questions the quality of the assessment brings up (it might not be the assessors fault - there are other factors such as time, etc that impact it). I would add "do" to "can" and "should" with regard to the functions organizations perform. I say that because if you are only looking for the latter you may miss the one that actually is. I think in some cases it may be that the security sector has grown a certain way because it met environmental needs that may still be required, and possibly best performed by that organization. We may not recognize it - and possibly Marc's points about functional analogs is what helps us distinguish and recognize - but reallocating that function to something else - either new, or existing may cause problems (and create work or drain resources). However, it may also be that either the environmental conditions have changed to the point where no amount of reforming an existing institution matters and the value to the sector and to the partner may be much higher to develop something new, or perhaps move a function to some other organization or institution that remains relevant with growth potential - we've done that here on occasion where authorities are amended, reorganized or temporarily modified to meet changes in the environment - in fact that is the ongoing discussion about inter-agency reform With regard to reform -the starting conditions matter - so in Iraq 2003 there may have been greater latitude for reforming or reorganizing then in other places where conditions may be politically constraining and have more adverse consequences.

So, going back to my starting point: SFA needs to assess the security functions required (theoretically) by the HN, those the HN wants or can be convinced are required, those it can perform adequately, and those it needs help on. Then the SFA assessment must address the organizations that perform or could perform those functions. Only then can one design a plan to strengthen/reform current organizations and develop new ones.

Spot on and I steal it shamelessly

Best, Rob

[John T. Fishel]

Steal at will

[marct]

Hi Rob,

John and I are saying the same thing in a slightly different way. A "functional analog" is some institution (structure) that performs all or part of a function where you would not expect it even if that function is not formally recognized in the culture. Malinowski's Coral Gardens and their Magic is the classic example of such an analysis (Amazon, Google), and probably explains why we (Anthropologists) adopted the concept but don't do our analyses that way .

To take a really simple example, in most strongly clan based societies of, say, 50-100 years ago (and to a lesser extent now), classic Western "Police" functions were conducted by the members of the kinship group, while inter-group conflicts (sub-state) were functionally controlled by an institution of feuding and whatever specific rituals were designed to end feuds (often marriages).

Functional analogs, specifically recognizing where hey are and what structures and institutions they are associated with, has some pretty serious implications for SFA. For example, let's take the concept of "border security". Is a state border even recognized, or is the functional analog for the majority of the population based on kinship network? As an example, most of the African states were carved out by the colonial powers and have almost nothing to do with the ethnic boundaries. In this case, "border security" is probably understood as fluid and based on kin group (ethnicity) and not on state boundary. Given this, could border security be handled by creating an institution that drew on kin groups to "police" their own ethnic borders? They will certainly let their own kin cross, but all other groups would be stopped. State level policy "permissions" could easily be created to match the reality of kin-group cross-border movement.

Marc