job; whether it's the AF, the Army, Marines is IMO not important -- though the various Chiefs of Staff / CNO (I left out the Masters At Arms, different kettle of Squid. Er, Fish... ) and their personnel folks might not agree.

The current training regimen in the USAFSF is heavily law enforcement oriented and less combat skill oriented; the Army and Marine MP forces reverse the priorities. Any one of the three could do the job, all would need a modified syllabus, extra and special training for the advisory mission. A national policing mission in most other nations in the world is far different from the milieu in US LE circles in all respects other than base human nature characteristics.

The key point is that whoever does the mission in a potentially hostile environment should be military for a number of reasons, not least due to relations with the host nation who understand the military - police or paramilitary regimen and prefer it to the amorphous US model. A minor exception can be made for British Commonwealth nations who are more attuned to the Anglo model but also tend toward the paramilitary school of thought.

While I don't care which service does it, in your paper, you may wish to consider these:

LINK

LINK

LINK