When the U.S. helps a Host Nation Government prevent or defeat insurgency, lawlessness or subversion, DOD calls it FID.
It does not specify who does it - so, in this case the purpose defines the activity - so I'd say both of Mike's examples are FID.
SFA equates to those activities (organize, Train, Equip, Rebuild/Build and Advise) that support the development of FSF capability and capacity.
Note there is no purpose here, just activities. There is no taxonomy, there is an ontology.
If there is no development and no advising occurring, then its pretty much a combined action - e.g. two security forces from different countries working together against an enemy.
All of those actions may be part of a broader COIN effort, or part of some other effort.
Unlike other restrictive terms such as Security Assistance (Title 22 programs only) or Security Cooperation (DoD only), SFA is intended to enable all the agencies and organizations involved in developing FSF capabilities and capacities to coordinate, plan, synchronize and integrate all their FSF developmental activities in order to avoid gaps and to increase efficiency and effectiveness of those efforts. Policy and strategy has to determine where, when and why, and how much the U.S. should invest in developing FSF capabilities.
The attached image may help.
The longer answer with historical examples and a methodology to go about assessing and developing FSF capabilities in their operating and generating forces is in the forthcoming JCISFA SFA Planner's Guide for FSF Force Development. It will take the user though the process with examples and also discuss how organizations conducting OTERA can define their own requirements and develop or resource capabilities.
We are just waiting on the new Deputy Director to do his review so he can then send it up to the Director.
Bookmarks