Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206”
Background and Issues for Congress

Nina M. Serafino
Specialist in International Security Affairs
November 12, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22855


Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

Summary
Section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2006, as
amended and regularly extended, provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and
equip foreign military forces for two specified purposes—counterterrorism and stability
operations—and foreign security forces for counterterrorism operations. Section 1206 authority
now extends through FY2017.
The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) version of the FY2015 NDAA would codify this
authority as permanent law under Title 10. In doing so, it would make several changes to the
current temporary law. Section 1203 of this bill, S. 2410, would, in particular, increase the
funding available for Section 1206 activities to $500 million (by providing a $150 million
reprogramming authority) and limit the scope for counterterrorism assistance to all security forces
that have a counterterrorism mission.
The Department of Defense (DOD) values this authority as an important tool to train and equip
military partners. Funds may be obligated only with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.
Through 2009, DOD used Section 1206 authority primarily to provide counterterrorism support.
Since FY2010, Section 1206 authority has also been used to provide significant assistance to train
and equip foreign military forces for military and stability operations in which U.S. forces
participate. Currently, there is a cap of $350 million on Section 1206 obligations per fiscal year.
Total funding thus far for Section 1206 programs since its inception in FY2006 is some $2.2
billion. During this period, Section 1206 funding supported bilateral programs in over 40
countries, several multilateral programs, and an associated global human rights program.
FY2014 programs notified to Congress totaled $314 million. These provided assistance to enable
10 European countries to participate in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Afghanistan, as well as assistance to five African countries.
No FY2015 funding has been notified to Congress as of early November 2014.
For several years, some Members have been concerned with several issues related to Section
1206 authority, both narrow and broad. Specific current concerns have included whether Section
1206 funds are being used appropriately and effectively. Some of these concerns have been
partially addressed. One key Section 1206 issue for the lame duck session of the 113th Congress is
whether Section 1206 should be made permanent law by codifying it under Title 10, as the Senate
Armed Services Committee proposes in its version of the FY2015 NDAA (S. 2410). This
proposal raises questions of effectiveness and utility, as well whether the proposed codification is
consistent with past practice and whether it has implications for DOD budgets, roles, and
missions.
Congressional Research Service

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

Contents
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 2
Section 1206 in Action ..................................................................................................................... 4
Purpose, Scope, and Funding .................................................................................................... 4
Section 1206 FY2015 Funding Conditions ......................................................................... 5
Section 1206 Programs and Funding, FY2014 ................................................................... 5
Trends FY2006-FY2014 ..................................................................................................... 5
Conditions on Section 1206 Programs ...................................................................................... 8
Required Report .................................................................................................................. 8
Joint DOD-State Department Selection and Approval Process ................................................. 9
Implementation ........................................................................................................................ 10
Section 1206 Human Rights Component ................................................................................ 10
Congressional Action: FY2015 ...................................................................................................... 11
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 12
Are Section 1206 Funds Being Used Effectively? .................................................................. 12
Timeliness ......................................................................................................................... 12
Sustainability ..................................................................................................................... 14
RAND Comparison of Section 1206 and Other BPC Security
Cooperation Mechanisms ............................................................................................... 16
DOD’s Section 1206 Assessment Tool and Assessment Results ....................................... 18
Section 1206 in Broader Perspective................................................................................. 18
Should Section 1206 Be Codified? .......................................................................................... 19
State Department Foreign Policy Coordination and Oversight ......................................... 20
Implications for DOD Security Cooperation and DOD Roles and Missions .................... 23
What Has Been the Effect of the New Section 1206 T&E Authority for Security
Forces? ................................................................................................................................. 24
Should Congress Consider Broader Security Assistance Reform? .......................................... 25

Tables
Table 1. Section 1206 Funding: FY2012-FY2014, by Country and Program ................................. 6
Table 2. RAND Ratings of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Other Train and Equip
Mechanisms Used by Combatant Commands ............................................................................ 17

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 26

Congressional Research Service

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

mong the issues related to U.S. assistance to foreign military and security forces that has
been of interest to the 113th Congress is the status of Section 1206 of the FY2006
ANational Defense Authorization Act (NDAA ), P.L. 109-163, as amended. This statute
provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to train and equip foreign military forces and
foreign maritime security forces for two specified purposes:
• To enable foreign national military and maritime security forces, as well as
foreign security forces to perform counterterrorism (CT) operations. (Nearly all
Section 1206 assistance from FY2006 to FY2009 was for CT training and
equipment.)
• To enable foreign military forces to participate in or to support military and
stability operations in which U.S. Armed Forces are participating. (A significant
portion of FY2010–FY2014 funds are provided for such assistance.)
Enacted in 2005 as a temporary authority, “Section 1206” authority, as it is known, has been
regularly extended. The FY2014 NDAA (P.L. 113-66, Section 1201) expanded the authority and
extended it through FY2017. Over the years, it has been used to fund a wide range of activities,
including purchasing equipment and related training to build maritime security capacity and to
reinforce land borders; acquiring vehicles, aircraft, and associated equipment and training to
enable military forces in Yemen and the Philippines to conduct counterterrorism operations in
their respective countries; and training and equipping military units from Burundi and Uganda to
fight in Somalia, and military units from Central and Eastern European forces to participate in the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) coalition operation in Afghanistan.
Nevertheless, Congress’s decision to grant DOD Section 1206 authority remains controversial.
Section 1206 is the first major Department of Defense (DOD) authority to be used expressly for
the purpose of training and equipping the national military forces of foreign countries worldwide.
This statute breaks with the framework set up half a century ago, which, with certain exceptions,
provides for DOD to train and equip foreign military forces under State Department Title 22
authority and through State Department programs. Some Members have stressed the need for a
DOD authority that combatant commanders can use to respond to emerging threats that put the
well-being of U.S. military personnel at risk or might eventually require robust, and costly, U.S.
military action. Others have questioned whether Section 1206 funds are being used appropriately
and effectively, and, above all, whether providing DOD with its own train-and-equip (T&E)
authorities undermines the Secretary of State’s statutory responsibility to ensure coherence of
U.S. foreign policy.
Of Interest for the 113th Congress’ “Lame Duck” Session
In potential action on the FY2015 NDAA, the 113th Congress will likely consider whether to make Section 1206
permanent law. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) version of the FY2015 NDAA (S. 2410) would, with
certain modifications, codify Section 1206 authority under Title 10 of the United States Code. (See below for a
discussion of this proposal.)
This report provides background on the pre-Section 1206 status of security assistance authorities
and the factors contributing to the enactment of Section 1206. It then sets out the purposes of the
legislation and scope of its activities, restrictions on its use, the DOD-State Department planning
process, and funding. It concludes with a discussion of four currently salient issues for Congress:
(1) Are Section 1206 funds being used effectively? (2) Should Section 1206 be codified as
permanent law? (3) What has been the effect of the new train and equip authority for security
forces? and (4) Should Congress consider broader security assistance reform?
Congressional Research Service
1

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

Background
For nearly 50 years, since the enactment of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended
(FAA), the Secretary of State has exercised the leadership role for foreign assistance, including
military assistance, specifically military education and training.1 Since then, with the exception of
a period from the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s inclusive of the Vietnam War, major foreign
military assistance programs have been carried out under State Department authority, oversight,
and guidance,2 with a DOD agency responsible for implementation.3 “Traditionally the State
Department plans, budgets and oversees security assistance programs and is the lead agency in
charge of all U.S. foreign policy and global engagement,” according to a 2008 report co-
sponsored by The American Academy of Diplomacy and the Henry L. Stimson Center. “The
DOD has supported overall foreign and national security policy by implementing these programs.
This relationship was designed to ensure that security assistance was aligned with general U.S.
foreign policy goals.”4
For many years, DOD had little interest in security assistance activities, as they were regarded
neither as a military mission nor as an activity of more than marginal value to ensuring national
security. In particular, training foreign military forces was not considered a task for general
purpose military forces, and for many years limited training was most often conducted by U.S.
SOF, often under State Department authority.5
DOD perspectives on training foreign military forces slowly began to change after the terrorist
attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 (9/11). Defense officials began to regard the
defeat of terrorist groups in the countries where they train and prepare as essential to U.S.
national security. But some realized that these groups could not be disrupted and defeated solely

1 As now stated in the FAA of 1961, as amended, Section 622(c) (22 U.S.C. 2382) states that the Secretary of State,
under the direction of the President, “shall be responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of
economic assistance, military assistance, and military education and training programs, including but not limited to
determining whether there shall be a military assistance (including civic action) or a military education and training
program for a country and the value thereof, to the end that such programs are effectively integrated both at home and
abroad and the foreign policy of the United States is best served thereby.”
2 Before the FAA, the Mutual Security Act of 1951 (P.L. 82-165, 65 Stat. 373) created a Mutual Security Agency in the
Executive Office of the President, whose Director was responsible for the “continuous supervision, general direction,
and coordination of all foreign aid—military, economic, and technical assistance.” U.S. Congress, House. U.S. Foreign
Aid: Its Purposes, Scope, Administration and Related Information
, prepared by the Legislative Reference Service,
Library of Congress. 86th Congress, 1st Session, House Document No. 116, Washington: USGPO, June 11, 1959, p. 69.
During part of the 1950s, DOD administered the military assistance programs under the White House’s policy direction
and guidance. Congress subsequently moved responsibility for non-military aid to the State Department (P.L. 81-329,
63 Stat. 714). Two lower-ranking State Department officials were charged (consecutively) with coordinating with DOD
regarding military aid before the responsibility was finally bestowed on the Secretary of State. For more detail on the
further evolution of Military Assistance Authority, see CRS Report RL34639, The Department of Defense Role in
Foreign Assistance: Background, Major Issues, and Options for Congress
, coordinated by Nina M. Serafino.
3 The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), under the DOD Under Secretary for Policy, and its predecessor
agency. While the original language in 1961 applied specifically to assistance authorized under the FAA, a 1976
amendment deleted this restriction.
4 The American Academy of Diplomacy and the Henry L. Stimson Center, A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future:
Fixing the Crisis in Diplomatic Readiness,
Ambassador Thomas Boyatt, Project Chairman, October 2008, p. 22.
Hereafter referred to as A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future.
5 Special Operations Forces also train together with foreign troops under a DOD authority, Title 10 U.S.C. Section
2011, Special Operations Forces: training with friendly foreign forces. The primary purpose of the Joint Combined
Exchange Training program, conducted under this authority, is to provide training for the U.S. forces.
Congressional Research Service
2

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

with U.S. forces employed under existing U.S. arrangements. U.S. military forces lacked the
language, country knowledge, and cultural sensitivity to conduct effective counterterrorist (CT)
activities in many countries where threats could be expected to emerge. Some DOD officials
realized that foreign military and security forces would have to take the lead in conducting such
activities, and would need training to assume that role. At the same time, DOD officials
considered the State Department as lacking the necessary expertise and capabilities to carry out
an effective counterterrorism program. DOD officials also viewed the State Department’s
planning and implementation processes under authorities for traditional T&E programs6 as too
slow and cumbersome to meet emerging threats.
In the mid-2000s, DOD officials developed a proposal for a “Global Train and Equip” authority
to increase U.S. support for foreign military and security forces in order to disrupt terrorist
networks, to build the capacity of legitimate states to provide security within their sovereign
territory to prevent terrorists from establishing footholds, and to build the capacity of legitimate
states to participate in U.N., regional, and U.S. coalition military missions. This proposal called
for a DOD lead, but also required State Department concurrence. Although this proposal was
initially resisted by certain sectors at both DOD and the State Department, it won the support of
then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and
the enthusiastic endorsement of geographic Combatant Commanders, according to one DOD
official who promoted the legislation.7
At the same time, perspectives on the use of U.S. military forces to train foreign military forces
began to evolve. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asserted that training foreign forces is
a military mission for U.S. general purpose forces.8 In early 2005, DOD requested, and Congress
granted, Section 1206 as a special contingency authority. Nevertheless, the armed services
committees repeatedly expressed hesitation about conceding this authority to DOD and cautioned
that it was to be regarded as a pilot program.
In April 2008 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) that still stands as
the DOD position on Section 1206, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates described this
authority as “a means to fill long-standing gaps in an effort to help other nations build and sustain
capable military forces.” Explaining DOD’s need to carry out such activities, Secretary Gates
stated that after the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 (9/11), “building
partner capacity is a vital and enduring military requirement” for DOD to fulfill its national
security mission. The “security of America’s partners is essential to America’s own security,”
according to Gates, and Section 1206 is a preventive tool through which the United States helps

6 State Department programs under which foreign military forces are trained are the International Military Education
and Training (IMET) and the Expanded IMET (E-IMET) programs. Equipment is provided to foreign governments
through the State Department Foreign Military Sales/Foreign Military Financing (FMS/FMF) programs. According to
DOD, this “traditional security assistance takes three to four years from concept to execution,” while “Global Train and
Equip authority allows a response to emergent threats or opportunities in six months or less.” U.S. Department of
Defense, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request Summary Justification, February 4, 2008, p. 103. Hereafter referred to as
FY2009 DOD Summary Justification. In practice, however, the time frame for a Section 1206 response is sometimes
considerably longer than six months; see the section below on Timeliness.
7 Author’s discussion with Jeffrey (Jeb) Nadaner, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Stability
Operations.
8 See, for instance: Robert M. Gates. A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age. Foreign
Affairs, January/February 2009. In this article, Gates worries that the military personnel and promotions system is not
able “to reflect the importance of advising, training, and equipping foreign troops—something still not considered a
career-enhancing path for the best and brightest officers.”
Congressional Research Service
3

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

allies and partners to “confront extremists and other potential sources of global instability within
their borders ... before festering problems and threats become crises requiring U.S. military
intervention.”
At the same time, Secretary Gates dismissed the idea that Section 1206 duplicates or could be
viewed as a substitute for State Department Foreign Military Financing (FMF) programs.
However, other government personnel state that Section 1206 has been used as a substitute for
FMF, especially in the early years, given what many analysts believe is a shortage of FMF funds
to meet legitimate foreign defense equipment needs.
In a statement that defense officials have reiterated over the years, an FY2010 budget document
asserted that U.S. Combatant Commanders consider the Section 1206 program “the single most
important tool for the Department to shape the environment and counter terrorism.”9 The budget
document described Section 1206 as important because it allows the United States to train and
equip foreign military forces to respond to “urgent and emergent threats,” and because it
“provides opportunities to solve problems before they become crises.”10
Section 1206 in Action
Purpose, Scope, and Funding
As noted above, Congress provided Section 1206 authority for two purposes. One is to enable
foreign military and security forces to perform counterterrorism (CT) operations. The other is to
enable foreign military forces to participate in or to support military and stability operations in
which U.S. Armed Forces are participating. In proposing the expansion of Section 1206 authority
to include all security forces, HASC explained in its committee report (H.Rept. 113-102, to
accompany H.R. 1690, its version of the FY2014 NDAA that it expected “this authority to be
used sparingly when it is clear that these forces are the most suitable for the task.”
Despite Section 1206’s dual purpose, through FY2009, almost all Section 1206 funding was used
to provide counterterrorism equipment and related training. The types of equipment provided
include radios and communications systems; surveillance and reconnaissance systems; trucks,
ambulances, boats, and other vehicles; aircraft; small arms and rifles; night vision goggles and
sights; and clothing. From FY2010 on, Section 1206 has also provided considerable funding to
train and equip foreign military forces for stability operations, in particular to support the
International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan. Currently, there is a cap of $350
million on Section 1206 funding per fiscal year.
Section 1206 programs are funded from the DOD operations and maintenance (O&M) account.
During the first two years of the program, DOD transferred funds from lower-priority missions to
fund activities under Section 1206, according to the Office of the Secretary of Defense/Policy
(OSD/P). Since then, Congress has largely appropriated funds under the defense-wide O&M
account. The current authorized limit for Section 1206 spending is $350 million. Of this, no more

9 U.S. Department of Defense, Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request Summary Justification, May 2009, pp. 1-13. Hereafter
referred to as Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request Summary Justification.
10 Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request Summary Justification, pp. 1-13.
Congressional Research Service
4

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

than $100 million may be spent to build stabilization and peacekeeping capacity of foreign
military forces.
Section 1206 FY2015 Funding Conditions
The FY2014 NDAA states that no more than $262.5 million of FY2015 funds may be obligated
or expended on Section 1206 programs until the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of
the Secretary of State, reports on proposed planning and execution of programs to build the
counterterrorism capacity of a foreign country’s security forces during FY2015.
Section 1206 Programs and Funding, FY2014
For FY2014, DOD notified $314.0 million for 20 programs in 18 countries. The single largest
recipient is Yemen, with a little over $69 million; the next largest is Niger, with almost $37
million; then Kenya, with about $29 million; and Lebanon, with $20 million—all for
counterterrorism purposes. Some $100 million is provided to train and equip Central and Eastern
European countries to support NATO International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) operations
in Afghanistan.
Trends FY2006-FY2014
Total funding thus far for Section 1206 programs since its inception in FY2006 is some $2.2
billion. (For a breakdown by country of FY2012-FY2014 funding, see below.) During this period,
Section 1206 funding supported bilateral programs in over 40 countries, several multilateral
programs, and an associated global human rights program. The largest recipient has been
Yemen,11 with some $400 million. Among the other largest recipients over time have been
Lebanon, Pakistan, and the Philippines, but of these only Lebanon received funding in FY2013–
FY2014. Pakistan ceased to receive Section 1206 funding after special counterinsurgency funds
dedicated to that country were created. The Philippines received Section 1206 assistance every
fiscal year from FY2007 through FY2012.
In the past few years, programs in Africa have increased substantially. Kenya, Mauritania, Niger,
Uganda, and Burundi have become large recipients, part of a trend that has seen Section 1206
assistance to Africa increase significantly to support counterterrorism operations against the
Lord’s Resistance Army, al-Shabaab, al-Qa’ida, and Al Qa’ida affiliates, as well as to prepare
African troops to support the African Union peacekeeping missions in Somalia (AMISOM).12
Countries in the Asia-Pacific region, which received substantial assistance through FY2010, have
received no funding in FY2013 and FY2014.
Initially, virtually all 1206 funding was provided for counterterrorism purposes. Since FY2010,
Section 1206 has provided substantial assistance to train and equip Eastern and Central European
forces to participate in NATO’s ISAF coalition operations.

11 See CRS Report RL34170, Yemen: Background and U.S. Relations, by Jeremy M. Sharp.
12 See CRS Report R41070, Al Qaeda and Affiliates: Historical Perspective, Global Presence, and Implications for
U.S. Policy
, coordinated by John W. Rollins; CRS Report R42094, The Lord’s Resistance Army: The U.S. Response, by
Alexis Arieff and Lauren Ploch Blanchard; and CRS Report R41473, Countering Terrorism in East Africa: The U.S.
Response
, by Lauren Ploch Blanchard.
Congressional Research Service
5

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

Table 1. Section 1206 Funding: FY2012-FY2014, by Country and Program
($U.S. Millions, FY2012 and FY2013 Obligation, FY2014 as Notified to Congress)
Recipient(s)
Program
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Total HR/RCA Training
1.1
0.9
1.2
Burkina Faso
Counterterrorism (CT) Capability Enhancement

5.9

Logistics Company (CT Support)


9.6
Burundi
Mobility Support Company

7.1

National Defense Force Advanced Infantry


12.1
Development
Chad
Logistic Company (CT Support)

7.3

Djibouti
Construction of a Warehouse


0.8
Kenya
Special Operations Regiment CT Capability

7.0

Enhancement
Aircraft and ISR Capability

15.7
15.7
Light Armor Reconnaissance Company


11.5
Maritime Mobility Training & Equipment


0.3
Construction of an Aircraft Hanger and Boat Ramp


1.5
Libya
Special Operations Forces (SOF) Support

8.4

Company
Mauritania
Logistics Support Package for CT
7.0


Aircraft and Intelligence, Surveillance and

21.7

Reconnaissance (ISR) Capability
Contract Logistics Support

0.5

Aviation & Medical Capabilities Enhancement


16.2
Niger
Air Logistics and Communications Enhancement
11.7


Logistics Company (CT Support)

8.5

Counterterrorism Battalion


12.1
Aircraft & ISR Capability


24.8
Tunisia
Maritime Security Capability
6.9


CT Vehicles Weapons, and Equipment


4.6
Uganda
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems Capability

4.2

Engineer Support Company

7.4

Mobility Support Company

7.1

Uganda and
CT Support for Deployment to Somalia
18.8


Burundi
Total Africa
44.4
100.7
1093
Bulgaria
ISAF Deployment Enhancement
3.2


Command and Control Capability

7.2

Tactical Vehicle Transport and Unmanned Aerial


24.3
System
Congressional Research Service
6

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

Recipient(s)
Program
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Croatia
Operations Mentor and Liaison for Afghanistan
5.2


ISAF Deployment Enhancement

5.5
9.6
Czech Republic
Counter-IED enhancement for ISAF participation
4.0


ISAF Deployment Enhancement

16.9

Unmanned Aerial System


9.6
Estonia
ISAF Deployment Enhancement
7.0
4.6

Special Operations Training for ISAF
1.8


Special Operations Forces Enhancement


2.2
NATO Mission Support System


2.7
Georgia
Infantry Battalion Deployment to ISAF
3.8


Equipment Repair

0.1

Hungary
Joint Tactical Air Comptroller for ISAF
13.3


Special Operations Task Group Deployment

7.9

ISAF Deployment/Resolute Support Packages


2.3
Latvia
Build military force capacity to support ISAF
3.2


ISAF Deployment Enhancement

5.2

ISAF/Resolution Support Packages


11.7
Lithuania
SOF Deployment Enhancement Program
12.8
8.6

Special Operations Forces Capabilities


11.1
Enhancement
Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Counter-IED


No extra
equipment (Redirected FY2011 Mali funds)
costs*
Malta
Maritime and Intelligence Capability Enhancement
4.6


Poland
ISAF Deployment Enhancement
14.0


ISAF Deployment Enhancement

11.1

Special Operations Forces Counter-IED


3.8
Survivability Enhancement
Romania
ISAF Deployment Enhancement
14.3
10.1

Special Operations Forces Enhancement & Training


19.9
ISAF Deployment Enhancement

10.0

Explosive Ordnance Disposal and Counter-IED


No extra
equipment (Redirected FY2011 Mali funds)
costs*
Multiple
Training for ISAF Deployments – Albania, Bulgaria,
13.0


Recipients
Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia
Total Greater Europe
100.3
87.1
99.5
Malaysia
Deployment Enhancement for ISAF
0.2


Philippines
Insertion and Extraction Capability
7.5


Total Asia and the Pacific
7.7
0
0
Congressional Research Service
7

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

Recipient(s)
Program
FY2012
FY2013
FY2014
Bahrain
Biometric Col ection Program

0.4

Bangladesh
Ministry of Defense-Ministry of Home Affairs
14.4


Interoperability
Lebanon
Border Security Program

8.7
23.9
Yemen
SOF CT Enhancement
14.0


Fixed-Wing and Rotary-Wing Aircraft and Related
23.4


Items and Support to Enable Yemeni National
Military to Support CT Units
Integrated Border and Maritime Security Program

46.0

Unmanned Aerial System


17.5
ISR Aircraft


46.5
Aircraft and Related Equipment and Training


5.4
Total Middle East and South Asia
51.8
55.2
93.3
Total Western Hemisphere
0
0
0
Transportation and Pre-Shipment Consolidation Costs
12..0
12.0
12.0
Totals
218.6
255.8
314.0
Source: Section 1206 Fiscal Year 2012 and Fiscal Year 2013 reports submitted pursuant to Section 1206(f) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (P.L. 109-163), as amended by Section 1204(b) of
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81); congressional notifications on Section
1206 programs for Fiscal Year 2014 submitted December 17, 2013, March 5, 2014, and July 22, 2014.
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.
Conditions on Section 1206 Programs
Section 1206 of the FY2006 NDAA requires that programs conducted under its authority observe
and respect human rights, fundamental freedoms, and the “legitimate civilian authority within that
country.” The authority may not be used to provide any type of assistance that is otherwise
prohibited by any provision of law. It also may not be used to provide assistance to any country
that is otherwise prohibited from receiving such assistance under any other provision of law. The
legislation also requires a 15-day advance notification to the congressional defense, foreign
affairs, and appropriations committees before initiating each program. This notification must
specify, among other things, the program country, budget, and completion date, as well as the
source and planned expenditure of funds.
Required Report
The FY2014 NDAA requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State,
to submit a report within 120 days of enactment addressing four topics: (1) a statement of the
purposes for which assistance maybe provided consistent with the Presidential Policy Directive
on U.S. Security Sector Assistance (PPD-23) issued April 5, 2013; (2) a description of the types
of activities appropriately within the scope of capacity building assistance under Section 1206
authority; (3) a description and assessment of the monitoring and evaluation procedures for such
assistance, including appropriate measures of effectiveness applicable to counterterrorism
capacity building activities; and (4) a prioritized list and discussion of the primary security threats
Congressional Research Service
8

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

as of the day of the report against which counterterrorism capacity building efforts may be
directed.
Joint DOD-State Department Selection and Approval Process13
Section 1206 programs are developed and selected under a “dual-key” process that culminates
with the signature of both the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State. Section 1206
authority permits the Secretary of Defense to provide Section 1206 support with the
“concurrence” (i.e., the approval) of the Secretary of State. Section 1206 also requires both
secretaries to jointly formulate any program and coordinate in its implementation. Coordination
for the first year programs in FY2006 was reported to be spotty, but DOD and the State
Department subsequently developed an extensive joint review process. A DOD document
described this joint review process in 2008 as the “gold standard” for interagency planning and
cooperation.14 On the other hand, a 2013 RAND report on authorities and other mechanisms to
“Build Partner Capacity” (BPC) described Section 1206 as “encumbered by a complex approval
process ... [that] requires the involvement of both DoD and DoS [the State Department] including
high-level approvals before funds are spent.”15
Early in the fiscal year, the DOD Joint Staff and the State Department’s Bureau of Political-
Military Affairs (PM) kick off the process with a call for proposals issued with identical guidance.
Most recommendations originate at the field level, where geographic Combatant Commands
(COCOMs) and U.S. embassy country teams jointly formulate proposals, although the degree of
collaboration may vary. For proposals originated by the military, the COCOM forwards the
proposal to Joint Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. For proposals originated in
State Department channels, the embassy forwards it to the State Department. The relevant
Ambassador and Combatant Commander each must personally sign off on a proposal. DOD and
State Department personnel state that many more projects are submitted by the Combatant
Commands than by embassy staff.16
At the Pentagon and the State Department, staff conduct an extensive review process to prioritize
the many proposals (they have numbered in the hundreds in recent years). The OSD Office of the
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations Capabilities and Counterterrorim17
takes the DOD lead. It coordinates reviews for feasibility, political-military considerations, and
legal status with OSD and Joint Staff regional and functional offices. At the State Department, the
Bureau for Political-Military affairs consults with the Office of the Coordinator for
Counterterrorism (S/CT), the regional bureaus, and the Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign

13 A joint report by the DOD and State Department Inspectors General dedicates Chapter 2 to the approval process and
recommends several changes intended to strengthen and formalize the process. Inspectors General U.S. Department of
Defense and U.S. Department of State, Interagency Evaluation of the Section 1206 Global Train and Equip Program,
Department of Defense and Department of State, Department of Defense Report No. IE-2009-007 and Department of
State Report No. ISP-I-09-69, August 31, 2009, pp. 9-15, http://oig.state.gov/documents/organization/129491.pdf.
Hereafter referred to as Inspectors General Report.
14 FY2009 DOD Summary Justification, p. 103.
15 Jennifer D.P. Moroney, David Thaler, and Joe Hogleer, Review of Security Cooperation Mechanisms Combatant
Command Utilize to Build Partner Capacity
, RAND, Santa Monica, CA, 2013, p. 27, http://www.rand.org/pubs/
research_reports/RR413.html. Hereafter referred to as RAND Review of BPC Security Cooperation Mechanisms.
16 Author’s discussions with DOD and State Department personnel.
17 This office is located under the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict and International Cooperation (SO/LIC&IC).
Congressional Research Service
9

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

Assistance (F), and then forwards proposals to the State Department legal and congressional
liaison offices for vetting. The offices of the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and of State may also
indicate their priorities. Selection criteria include the urgency of the threat, the ability of the host
nation to address that threat from its own resources, the ability of the host nation to sustain the
capability, either from its own resources or through FMF funding, and the risks of inaction.18
Once prioritized within each agency, the DOD and State lead offices convene a joint DOD-State
review board to select those proposals that will be recommended to the Secretaries. Either
Secretary can veto a project. Once program memoranda are signed by both secretaries, DOD
sends congressional notifications to the armed services, foreign affairs, and appropriations
committees. No funds can be obligated until 15 days after these committees are notified and given
the opportunity to review the projects.
Implementation
The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), which
implements many security cooperation programs, including
Security Assistance and
Section 1206, has taken steps to improve the timeliness of
Cooperation Terminology
Section 1206 deliveries. The DSCA is a defense agency
“Security assistance” and “security
(under the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy)
cooperation” are terms that have no
government-wide definition, and are
established to administer State Department security
even used differently within DOD. In
assistance programs such as Foreign Military Financing,
general, security assistance refers to the
Foreign Military Sales, and International Military Education
State Department programs to train
and Training, Excess Defense Articles, and drawdowns, and
and equip foreign military and other
security forces, and related civilian
now also administers a number of DOD security
personnel, and sometimes to similar
cooperation programs, including Section 1206. 19
DOD assistance as well. Security
cooperation includes security
assistance, but also refers to the wide
Section 1206 Human Rights Component
range of programs DOD conducts
under Title 10 and NDAA authorities
Section 1206 programs include a two-day training course on
to interact with foreign militaries and
related civilian personnel.
human rights and international humanitarian law. The
course is conducted by the Defense Institute for
International Legal Studies (DIILS), located in Newport, RI. According to material provided by
DIILS, course components include a seminar on observing and respecting human rights and
respect for civilian authority, material on regional human rights agreement if relevant, and a
session on the right against torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Also
included are sessions on gender violence, rules for the use of force, rules of engagement, and law
pertaining to international armed conflict and internal armed conflict.

18 Author’s interviews with Department of State officials, September 2009, and e-mail exchanges with DOD and State
Department officials, October and November 2009.
19 More information on the DSCA is available at http://www.dsca.mil.
Congressional Research Service
10

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

Congressional Action: FY2015
The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) version of the FY2015 NDAA (S. 2410, as
reported June 2, 2014) would codify, or make permanent law, a modified version of Section 1206
global train and equip authority as part of Title X (Armed Services) of the U.S. Code. In Section
1203 of S. 2410, SASC also proposes to
• expand the types of support that DOD may provide under Section 1206 from
equipment, supplies, training, and small-scale military construction to include
defense services;20
• expand the uses of support to foreign national military forces for participating in
or supporting military and stability operations from operations in which the U.S.
Armed Forces are participating to include allied or coalition operations that
benefit U.S. national security interests;
• redefine forces eligible for assistance, with counterterrorism training limited to
foreign national military forces, maritime and border security forces, and other
security forces that have a counterterrorism mission, rather than available to all
security forces as currently in law;
• retain the authorized limit of $350 million, but also permit the reprogramming of
an additional $150 million under established procedures to fund activities under
this authorities, in effect authorizing a total of $500 million for this program;
• raise the cap on funding for Section 1206’s second purpose (i.e., to train and
equip foreign military forces to participate in or support allied or coalition
military or stability operations) from $100 million to $150 million; and
• permit the use of Section 1206 funds to conduct assessments of the effectiveness
of the program, requiring annual reports through 2025 summarizing the findings
of such assessments, and require the Comptroller General (head of the
Government Accountability Office) to conduct annual audits of Section 1206
programs.
S. 2410 also includes two Section 1206-related provisions that would not be codified: Section
1203(d) would require annual reports from the Secretary of Defense summarizing the findings of
assessments of Section 1206 programs, and Section 1203(e) would require an annual audit by the
Comptroller General of the United States (i.e., the Government Accountability Office).
The House-passed version of the bill (H.R. 4435) has no corresponding provisions.

20 The Arms Export Control Act defines defense services as “any service, test, inspection, repair, training, publication,
technical or other assistance, or defense information,” excluding design and construction services as specified
elsewhere in law (P.L. 90-629, Section 47(4); 22 U.S.C. 2794(4)).

Congressional Research Service
11

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

Issues for Congress
The Senate Armed Services Committee’s decision to include in its version of the FY2015 NDAA
language that would make Section 1206 permanent law brings to a head the debates of its
effectiveness and its status as a DOD authority. Congress established Section 1206 in FY2006 as
a pilot project to test the utility of a flexible funding mechanism in order to provide the U.S.
government with a means to respond rapidly to emerging (and some would say urgent) threats to
U.S. security, including threats to the security of U.S. military forces, that would pose too great a
risk if left unattended.
In the decade since Section 1206 was established, DOD and the State Department have worked
out procedures and processes to improve decision making and implementation of Section 1206
programs. Nevertheless, questions remain as to whether Section 1206 is as effective as it could
be. Members have had a number of concerns about effectiveness, centering on the need to
improve the timeliness of deliveries, ensure that the capabilities put in place by Section 1206
programs are sustained, and assess program accomplishments. Some may consider the largest
question to be one of status; that is, whether an authority like Section 1206 to improve the
operational capacity of foreign forces, in essence a foreign assistance program even though DOD
originally argued that its purpose was to meet U.S. needs, is appropriately codified under Title 10.
The following sections discuss the effectiveness of Section 1206 programs, as well as the
question of whether this authority should be codified and the related question of whether DOD
should retain its own T&E authority. It concludes with a short discussion of whether Section 1206
should be reconsidered in the context of broader security assistance reform.
Are Section 1206 Funds Being Used Effectively?
With Section 1206 in its ninth year of funding, a major question is whether Section 1206
programs are effective. There are a number of components of effectiveness: whether timelines are
shortened compared with other foreign assistance programs, whether programs are sustainable
and sustained, and whether the purposes of the assistance are most often met.
Timeliness
Although the primary rationale for Section 1206 funding was that it would enable the U.S.
government to respond more quickly to emerging needs than possible under the FMF process, the
delivery of Section 1206 equipment has not always proved as expeditious as originally expected.
DOD stated in a FY2009 budget request document that Section 1206 authority “allows a response
to urgent and emergent threats or opportunities in six months or less.”21 Especially in Section
1206’s first several years, the actual delivery time for much equipment was considerably longer.22

21 FY 2009 Budget Request Summary Justification, p. 103.
22 A January 2009 DOD letter to certain Members of Congress states that “Section 1206 authority can provide training
and equipment in one to two years, or less.” A copy of the letter was provided by DOD, with the permission of a
congressional recipient. It is signed by the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric S Edelman, who
occupied that post as of the date of the letter, January 16, 2009. Hereafter referred to as OSD letter of January 16, 2009
responding to Members of Congress.
An August 2009 joint report of the DOD and State Department Inspectors
General indicated a 6- to 18-month timeline for delivery of Section 1206 equipment and supplies provided through
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

By continuously improving the delivery process, DOD has reduced the timelines for delivery. A
revised timeline calls for delivery within 18 months, and preferably 12 months, for routine
deliveries, and 6 months when needed to meet surge requirements. DOD is now striving to
deliver many articles in less than six months from the end of the 15-day congressional
notification period.
Nevertheless, in comparison to other equipping programs, an April 2010 GAO report cast Section
1206 response timeframes, overall, as an improvement. That report stated that Section 1206 funds
enabled DOD and State “to respond to urgent and emergent needs more quickly than they have
been able to do with FMF and other security assistance programs.” GAO found that these
agencies “have often formulated and begun implementing projects within 1 fiscal year, while
FMF projects have usually required up to 3 years of planning.”23 More recently, some analysts
find that the winding down of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan has also had a positive
effect on the timeliness and cost of deliveries. With demand down for their services, commercial
shippers are now competing for business, facilitating rapid delivery and reducing costs.
Delays have multiple causes, not all of which can be remedied. Delivering defense articles and
services to U.S. representatives in multiple partner nations, with national customs and import
processes, presents unique challenges. According to DSCA, in FY2014 there were some 156
deliveries (with an estimated value of more than $300 million) to 29 Section 1206 programs in
more than 25 countries. These deliveries included aircraft, armored vehicles, communications
equipment, weapons, ammunition, and individual equipment. Over the years, programs have been
held up because of events in a recipient country. In other cases, however, the causes have been
systemic processing problems at DSCA and at the military services contracting offices that affect
Section 1206 timelines.
DOD and the State Department have worked arduously to overcome numerous obstacles to
timely delivery. Together, they developed processes to expedite proposal development and
selection. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA), which administers the program,
increased the amount of staff time and created new procedures and mechanisms to expedite
deliveries. In particular, DSCA has provided a dedicated staff to oversee the delivery process,24
developed a computer-based delivery tracking tool, established a working partnership with the
U.S. Transportation Command, and instituted a centralized delivery system to expedite Section
1206 orders.25 These steps have provided greater accountability and predictability, according to

(...continued)
FY2006 funds and stated that DSCA agency actions were needed to reduce procurement and shipping delays to
respond more quickly to actual or emerging terrorist threats, and to ensure all approved case funds are obligated before
funding authorization expires. Inspectors General Report, pp. ii and iv (Recommendation 3).
23 GAO-10-431, p. 4.
24 During Section 1206’s early years, DSCA had no staff dedicated to that program. Over time, the number of dedicated
Section 1206 staff increased to four, but as of this writing it stands at three.
25 The centralized delivery system was created especially for Section 1206 deliveries to Pakistan in 2008 and then
extended to the entire Section 1206 program in 2010. As of 2006, when the Section 1206 program commenced, the
existing delivery system had been designed for large items purchased by or provided to foreign countries under the
Foreign Military Sales/Foreign Military Financing Program, which largely depended on the recipient country or a
commercial firm to handle delivery. This system was problematic for Section 1206 deliveries because they consist
largely of smaller and more numerous items than FMS/FMF deliveries and they rely on U.S. personnel in recipient
countries to receive and account for the articles. Now, instead of shipping items individually as they become available,
most types of Section 1206 items are delivered to a central shipping depot or “consolidation point,” where they are
bundled into larger shipments, which are easier to track, for surface or air transport. (Among the types of items not
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

those interviewed on this topic. DSCA also created an online Security Cooperation Management
Suite (SCMS) to track funds, including Section 1206 funds, as well as a web portal to share
Section 1206 data. Nevertheless, quick delivery of items in high demand with a limited number of
suppliers, such as night-vision goggles, remains difficult.
Still, a 2013 RAND report indicates that some geographic Combatant Commands may regard
timeliness as a continuing problem, but perhaps as much because the approval process is
sometimes perceived as too long as because the delivery process is perceived as too slow. RAND
found from information gathered from the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) that while
“processes had improved ... it still takes a long time to get [Section 1206] projects approved and
resources allocated” and from the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) that “sometimes funding
comes too late.... ”26
Some analysts point to the continuing temporary status of Section 1206 as one impediment to
developing a more efficient and timely delivery system. If Section 1206 were codified, as
proposed by SASC, making it a permanent program, these analysts argue that it would become a
higher priority for DOD, leading to the allocation of more resources for planning and
implementing Section 1206 programs.
Sustainability
For Section 1206 CT programs to be effective, most believe that they must be sustained over the
long run. Sustainment includes the ability to maintain equipment in working condition as well as
to provide appropriate personnel to operate it. The 2009 joint State Department and DOD
Inspectors General report recommends that, during the planning process, host nation governments
commit to a program and demonstrate the capability to sustain it.27 The GAO flagged sustainment
as a major issue in its April 2010 report: “The long-term impact of Section 1206 projects is at risk
because U.S. agencies have not fully addressed how to sustain these projects,” according to the
GAO.28 This Section 1206-specific judgment is supported by a RAND comparative study of U.S.

(...continued)
shipped from the consolidation point are arms, ammunition, and patrol boats.) U.S. carriers are preferred. Generally,
surface transport is less expensive but slower, while air transport is more expensive but faster. Large items like
Humvees are put on surface transport, while air transport is preferred for sensitive items such as communications
equipment, night vision equipment, and lasers.
26 RAND Review of BPC Security Cooperation Mechanisms, pp. 175 and 178.
27 Inspectors General Report, p. iii (Recommendation 1) and p. iv (Recommendation 8). Recommendation 1 suggests
that DOD and the State Department revise the Section 1206 proposal submission template to require a statement
describing the actual or potential terrorist threat in detail, as well as the “bilateral consultation and coordination process
for formulating the proposal” and the “partner nation’s commitment and capability to sustain project implementation.”
Recommendation 8 states that the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, “in coordination with the Director of the Joint
Staff and Department of State’s Bureau of Political Military Affairs, should direct Security Cooperation Officers to
work with partner nations to develop a full Concept of Operations by the final approval of the project.”
28 GAO-10-431, p. 4. Pointing out that 76% of Section 1206 projects are in low- to lower-middle-income countries, the
GAO judged these projects to be “potentially threatened: by the unwillingness or limited means” of recipient countries
to sustain them. “Only 35 (26 percent) of the 135 approved project proposals we reviewed explicitly address the
recipient countries’ ability to sustain the projects, and 9 (7 percent) of those 135 proposals provided specific estimates
of the costs involved,” the GAO reported. GAO-10-431, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
14

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

building partner capacity efforts in 29 countries since the end of the Cold War, which identifies
sustainment a key element for an effective program.29
Because Section 1206 authority was established to meet immediate needs, Section 1206
assistance must cease when a threat is no longer “emerging,” however that may be defined. Some
policymakers have expressed concern that recipient countries do not continue to provide support
to sustain capabilities put in place by Section 1206 programs when Section 1206 funding ends.
Whether recipient countries should be asked to sustain capabilities that DOD identifies as
responding to U.S. needs is another question.
According to a DOD January 2009 letter to Members of Congress, DOD and the State
Department determine that the ability of recipient governments to sustain programs is taken into
account in program planning, and at times programs have been cut back to ensure a recipient
government could sustain the program. (Some question whether recipient countries should be
expected to sustain Section 1206 projects, which are established in response to U.S,-perceived
needs.) In addition, Section 1206 programs all provide “two-year spare parts packages and
training to operate and sustain equipment, including train-the-trainer support.” In 2012, Congress
enacted one change in Section 1206 authority to enhance sustainability (Section 1201(a) of the
FY2013 NDAA ,P.L. 112-239) by adding small-scale military construction to the list of allowable
expenditures (formerly equipment, supplies, and training). Section 1201(a)(2) permits small-scale
military construction of up to $750,000 per program and up to $25 million for all programs for
each fiscal year. Such funds can be used, for instance, for the construction of small boat houses to
shelter (and thus help maintain) patrol boats and other watercraft supplied by Section 1206
funding.
Nevertheless, some analysts have urged that more could be done to help recipient countries
sustain and maintain Section 1206 capabilities. One 2013 RAND report that sought to understand
what produces BPC success found that sustainment is “highly correlated” with long-term
effectiveness.30 Currently, additional sustainment funding is sometimes provided through the
State Department’s FMF account, and some argue this should be a regular source of sustainment
funding.31 GAO has cautioned, however, that “U.S. law potentially limits the availability of FMF
funds for sustainment,”32 and language in the annual foreign operations appropriations act states
that FMF funds are not to be used to maintain Section 1206 projects without the approval of the
congressional appropriations committees.33 Some analysts propose another option: designating a

29 Christopher Paul, Colin P. Clarke, Beth Grill, et al., What Works Best When Building Partner Capacity and Under
What Circumstances?
, RAND, Santa Monica, CA, 2013, pp. 87-88, 91, http://www.rand.org/content/deam/rand/pubs/
monographs/MG1200/MG1253z1/RAND_MG1253z1.pdf. Hereafter referred to as RAND What Works Best When
Building Partner Capacity?

30 RAND What Works Best When Building Partner Capacity? p. 91.
31A January 2009 DOD letter to certain Members of Congress states that “Section 1206 authority can provide training
and equipment in one to two years, or less.” A copy of the letter was provided by DOD, with the permission of a
congressional recipient. It is signed by the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric S Edelman, who
occupied that post as of the date of the letter, January 16, 2009. Hereafter referred to as OSD letter of January 16, 2009
responding to Members of Congress.

32 GAO-10-431, p. 4.
33 The most recent iteration of this language is in the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2014, P.L. 113-76, under the
heading Foreign Military Financing Program (128 Stat. 485). It states that “none of the funds made available under this
heading shall be made available to support or continue any program initially funded under the authority of section 1206
... unless the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense, has justified such program to the
Committees on Appropriations.... ”
Congressional Research Service
15

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

certain percentage of each fiscal year’s Section 1206 funding to sustain prior year programs.
Another 2013 RAND report that compared combatant command use of BPC authorities, funding
posts, and programs (which RAND collectively refers to as BPC “mechanisms”) recommended
that DOD and the State Department explore ways to “formally link” FMF to security cooperation
programs conducted under NDAA Title XII authorities, including Section 1206, in order to
address deficiencies in sustaining capabilities (among others).34
RAND Comparison of Section 1206 and Other BPC Security
Cooperation Mechanisms

In a 2013 study of the effectiveness and efficiency of 25 BPC mechanisms used by four
geographic combatant commands, RAND found that Section 1206 in general was rated about the
same as other train and equip mechanisms but that its utility varied greatly among the three
commands where it is employed (i.e., U.S. Africa Command [AFICOM], U.S. European
Command [EUCOM], and U.S. Pacific Command [PACOM]).35 Table 2 below compares the
ratings that RAND assigned to other train and equip authorities used by each command—
primarily State’s FMF and for PACOM IMET but also theater-specific DOD mechanisms—after
discussions with command personnel. The paragraphs below discuss these rankings as well as
those assigned to other DOD security cooperation authorities. (Note that selected detail from this
study is included in the sections on timeliness and sustainability, above.)
For AFRICOM, Section 1206 is ranked moderately high in efficiency, but is ranked moderately
low in effectiveness. The other security cooperation mechanisms AFRICOM primarily uses are
generally ranked higher in effectiveness. This includes both DOD and State Department
mechanisms; that is, funding for train and equip through State’s FMF, DOD’s “Section 1203”
authority to assist Yemen and East Africa, DOD’s Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahel
(OEF-TS) account, and the State Department’s Partnership for Regional East-Africa Counter-
Terrorism (PREACT) program. (PREACT supports a wide variety of activities, of which military
train and equip projects are but a small part.) It also includes other DOD security cooperation
activities through Traditional Commander’s Activities (TCAs) and SOF Joint Combined
Exchange Training exercises (JCETs) authorities, all of which were ranked as high or higher in
efficiency.
For EUCOM and PACOM, Section 1206 was ranked moderately high in effectiveness but low in
efficiency. When compared to FMF, its ranking was mixed. While EUCOM ranked FMF the same
as Section 1206 in effectiveness, it ranked FMF higher in efficiency. PACOM ranked FMF lower
in effectiveness than Section 1206, but higher in efficiency. For EUCOM, two theater-specific
DOD train and equip authorities were rated the same in effectiveness and higher in efficiency
(“Section 1202” equipment assistance to coalition partners in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the
Coalition Support Readiness Program) as Section 1206, and most other DOD security
cooperation mechanisms scored the same in effectiveness and the same or higher in efficiency.
For PACOM, State’s IMET ranked the same as Section 1206 in effectiveness and higher in
efficiency. (A PACOM ranking for FMF was not included.) Three small-scale educational
security cooperation programs ranked the same in effectiveness as Section 1206 and IMET, but

34 RAND Review of BPC Security Cooperation Mechanisms, p. 66.
35 RAND Review of BPC Security Cooperation Mechanisms, see pp. 34-57.
Congressional Research Service
16

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

higher than either in efficiency. SOF’s Joint Combined Exchange Training exercise authority (10
U.S.C. 2011) ranked lower in effectiveness (because by law the main benefit must accrue to U.S.
SOF), but lower in efficiency.
Table 2. RAND Ratings of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Other Train and Equip
Mechanisms Used by Combatant Commands

Moderately Low Effectiveness
Moderately High Effectiveness
Low Efficiency
GSCF – PACOM

Moderately Low Efficiency
FMF – PACOM
Section 1206 – EUCOM

Section 1206 – PACOM
Moderately High Efficiency
Section 1206 – AFRICOM
FMF – AFRICOM

Section 1203 – AFRICOM
FMF – EUCOM
IMET – PACOM
OEF-TS – AFRICOM
PREACT – AFRICOM
Section 1202 – EUCOM
High Efficiency

CRSP – EUCOM
Source: RAND Review of BPC Security Cooperation Mechanisms (2013), pp. 36, 39, 50.
Notes: Section 1206 is not used by the U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) because the Western
Hemisphere is not perceived as an area of emerging CT threats. RAND did not study the U.S. Central
Command (CENTCOM), citing the “unique nature” of its BPC programs, although a number of countries in the
CENTCOM Area of Responsibility have been Section 1206 recipients. DOD programs are in roman typeface.
State Department authorities and programs are in italics. CRSP = Coalition Readiness Support Program (P.L.
110-Section 1234 as amended and extended, most recently by P.L. 113-66, Section 1217); FMF = Foreign Military
Financing; IMET = International Military Education and Training; OEF-TS = Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans-
Sahel; PREACT = Partnership for Regional East-African Counter-Terrorism; Section 1203 = Counterterrorism
assistance for Yemen and East Africa (P.L. 112-239, Section 1203); and “Section 1202,” authority to provide
certain military equipment for use by military forces participating in combined operations with the United States
in Iraq or Afghanistan (P.L. 109-364, as amended and extended).
Because of continuing improvements, the Section 1206 ratings reflected in the RAND BPC
review might be different if assessed today, as some of the deficiencies noted have been
addressed or alleviated. For instance, AFRICOM rated Section 1206 moderately low in
effectiveness because of difficulties in multiyear planning as “the funding is limited to two years,
[and] it also does not provide for long-term sustainment, [and] institutional reform ... and FMF is
not usually available to sustain initiatives funded by Section 1206”36 To the extent that
sustainment funding may have become more available since the RAND study was completed, this
assessment may have changed. In another example, RAND found two opinions on why
PACOM’s use of Section 1206 had declined. According to security cooperation personnel,
Section 1206 goals were reached and no longer needed, but PACOM’s Special Operations Forces
(SOF) component offered an alternative perspective, citing Section 1206 deficiencies. However,
PACOM SOF cited not only time limitations on funding and the amount of staff effort needed to
develop and process proposals, which endure, but also the inability use Section 1206 to work with
personnel under Ministries of the Interior, which as of FY2014 is now allowed.

36 RAND Review of BPC Security Cooperation Mechanisms, pp. 35-36.
Congressional Research Service
17

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

DOD’s Section 1206 Assessment Tool and Assessment Results
For Section 1206 programs, DOD developed a qualitative assessment mechanism; the first results
were reported in 2013. The assessment of Section 1206 programs has been an ongoing concern.
In the late 2000s, several reports were generally positive, but two of them also urged the
development of metrics or other evaluation tools.37 There was some skepticism that a useful
measure of accomplishments could be developed, as some analysts noted that establishing the
outcomes of programs that are essentially preventive in nature is impossible, not unlike trying to
prove a negative.
In mid-February 2013, DOD presented its congressional oversight committees with its new
assessment framework for evaluating Section 1206 programs. According to DOD, the purpose of
the assessments is to measure implementation of 1206 programs, assess the quality and timeliness
of program implementation, measure the effects of programs, and estimate the return on
investment. Assessments are qualitative, built on in-depth interviews with personnel from the
units receiving assistance as well as with U.S. government personnel.
From this first round of assessment, DOD identified three programs as “successes” and concluded
that, on a whole, the programs selected for assessment “have generally enhanced the capability of
the recipients to conduct CT or stability operations” and that equipment provided for Section
1206 programs “for the most part” has been “used for appropriate purposes.”38 Among the lessons
learned were that “program design often lacks appreciation for operational conditions or
understanding of complete system,” that partner nation absorptive capacity varies, and that
sustainment “is always a challenge.... ” Sustainment problems include establishing maintenance
processes and securing funds for maintenance and spare parts.
A second round of assessments was undertaken. As of early November 2014, results have not
been reported.
Section 1206 in Broader Perspective
Building partner capacity has been highlighted in recent defense strategy and guidance as a key
component of defense planning and a significant means of decreasing DOD budgets in the long

37A July 2008 assessment of Section 1206 assistance to four countries—Lebanon, Pakistan, Yemen, and San Tome and
Principe—was generally positive, citing improvements in operational capacity, greater information-sharing and
cooperation, and troop morale, but also noting problems in two of those recipients. CNA Corporation Assessments.
Likewise, an August 2009 joint report by the DOD and State Department inspectors general found Section 1206, in a
qualitative review of projects in eight countries (all conducted with FY2006 funds, as noted above) to be “effective in
building partner nation capacity for counterterrorist and military or stability operations and helped those nations
increase control over their borders and ungoverned spaces and counter terrorism.”37 Nevertheless, this same report
recommended that DOD “should develop metrics of effectiveness ... and establish clearly defined outputs and
outcomes.” Inspectors General Report, p. iv. In an April 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
found that Section 1206 authority offers a unique and more timely mechanism than the State Department’s FMF for
responding to U.S. military priorities that require training and equipping foreign military forces, but expressed concerns
about the extent of monitoring and evaluation, as well as program sustainability. United States Government
Accountability Office, DOD and State Need to Improve Sustainment Planning and Monitoring and Evaluation for
Section 1206 and 1207 Assistance Programs
, GAO-10-431, Washington, D.C., April 15, 2010, pp. 5, 32. Accessed
through http://www.gao.gov. Hereafter referred to as GAO-10-431.
38 Department of Defense, 1206 Assessment Process, December 2012. Quotes in this paragraph taken from DOD
briefing slides.
Congressional Research Service
18

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

run,39 but others judge that “efforts are too often wasted.”40 The results of a 2013 RAND study
suggest that Section 1206 programs may exhibit varying degrees of success, depending on the
country assisted. Studying data for U.S. security assistance efforts in 29 partner nations over a
period of 20 years after the end of the Cold War, RAND found that assistance to foreign security
forces, which has become known as “Building Partner Capacity” (BPC) assistance has been more
effective when the partner nation (1) invests its own funds to support or sustain capacity; (2) has
sufficient absorptive capacity; (3) has high governance indicators; (4) has a strong economy; and
(5) shares security interests with the United States.41 However, it also found that “BPC done well,
done consistently, and matched to partner absorptive capacities and interests can be effective even
when the partner is not particularly robust in any dimension at the outset.”42
A study published in 2012 of U.S. security assistance to Greece, Vietnam, and Lebanon during
crucial historical periods found that training and equipping foreign forces is not enough.
Programs “were more likely to succeed,” it stated, “when the United States became deeply
involved in the partner state military’s sensitive affairs—influencing personnel and organization,
but refraining from becoming a co-combatant—and when unhelpful external actors played a
diminishing role.”43
Because DOD Section 1206 assessment data has not been publically released, no judgment is
possible here about whether DOD results are consistent with RAND and the 2012 study’s
findings. However, an additional consideration is that some analysts suggest that Section 1206 is
sometimes used to build relationships irrespective of the effect on capacity. RAND finds it neither
“surprising nor problematic” that the primary objective of some BPC programs is to build a
relationship or secure access, and points to a possible two-way synergy between relationship
building and BPC assistance “with better relations making capacity building more effective and
demonstrations of effectiveness in capacity building improving relations.” 44
Should Section 1206 Be Codified?
Policymakers’ decisions on codifying Section 1206 to Title 10 may be based on a range of
factors. In proposing the codification, SASC stated that Section 1206 “has developed into a
critical tool for DOD leaders and military commanders to build the capacity of partner nations’
forces to address emerging and urgent threats, including to counter the threat of terrorism as this

39 See CRS Report R42146, Assessing the January 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance (DSG): In Brief, by Catherine
Dale and Pat Towell.
40 Peter J. Munson, “The Limits of Security Cooperation,” War on the Rocks, September 10, 2013, Hereafter referred to
as “The Limits of Security Cooperation,” http://www.warontherocks.com/2013/09/the-limits-of-security-cooperation.
Munson continues: “In a limited number of cases—predominantly with more elite units trained by special operations
forces and in a few partner countries serious about developing their military—capacity building works well. In the
remainder of cases, capacity building efforts are an exercise in futility as evinced by the numerous cases in which
decades of SC [security cooperation] have yielded no perceptible change in the capabilities of partner militaries.”
Hereafter cited as “The Limits of Security Cooperation.” Munson’s biography describes him as a former Marine Corps
officer.
41 RAND What Works Best When Building Partner Capacity? pp. xvii.
42 RAND What Works Best When Building Partner Capacity? p. 89.
43 Mara E. Karlin, “Training and Equipping is Not Transforming: An Assessment of U.S. Programs to Build Partner
Militaries.”, (Ph.D. dissertation, John Hopkins University, 2012), p. 319.
44 RAND What Works Best When Building Partner Capacity? p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
19

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

threat has proliferated and diversified.”45 SASC found that Section 1206’s “maturity and proven
track record” is a “primary motivation” for codification, recommending that the priority for
Section 1206 programs remain “emerging and urgent threats.... ” 46 Factors that policymakers
may consider include not only Section 1206’s utility (including timeliness, sustainability,
efficiency and effectiveness, as discussed above), but also possible effects on the State
Department’s exercise of its foreign policy coordination and oversight responsibilities, and on
DOD’s security cooperation priorities and its ability to focus on its core warfighting mission.
State Department Foreign Policy Coordination and Oversight
When Congress established Section 1206 in FY2006 as a two-year “pilot project,” conferees on
the FY2006 NDAA stated their belief that “ any changes in statutory authorities for foreign
military assistance do not have unintended consequences for the effective coordination of U.S.
foreign policy writ large.... ” 47 In the years since Congress established Section 1206, several
foreign policy research institutions have advocated transferring Section 1206 authority and
programs to the State Department,48 which historically has been responsible for coordinating and

45 This perception has been reflected for a number of years in a variety of other documents, including DOD’s FY2009
Budget Request Summary
Justification, which stated that the “geographic Combatant Commanders consider global train
and equip authority the Department’s single most important tool for building partner operational capacity, shaping the
environment, and countering terrorism outside Iraq and Afghanistan,” (p. 102), and the January 2009 letter from the
Under Secretary of Defense to Members of Congress (cited above), which states that Section 1206 funds meet the
military needs determined by the geographic Combatant Commanders “for tools to build capable, reliable, and
interoperable partners as they prepare for—and seek to minimize the necessity for—military missions in the AORs
[Areas of Responsibility].” Section 1206, according to the letter, is a flexible, strategic tool “to meet urgent and
emergent threats and opportunities to build partner capacity... [and] ... to address critical counterterrorism needs as
defined by the U.S. Government.”
46 SASC report language pointed to the threats “posed by terrorist groups in North Africa, the Arabian peninsula, and
the Levant,” as the priority. It also encouraged DOD to provide continuing support to build the capacity of North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members and other coalition partners, noting their participation in operations and
special operations in Afghanistan and the continued need to build interoperability with allied and coalition military
forces, including special operations forces “in light of the security concerns in Eastern Europe and Ukraine.” U.S.
Congress, Senate Committee on Armed Services, Carl Levin National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015,
Report (to Accompany S. 2410)
, 113th Cong., 2nd sess., June 2, 2014, S.Rept. 113-176, pp. 184-185.
47 U.S. Congress, House, Conference Committee Report, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006:
Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 1815
, committee print, 109th Cong., 1st sess., December 18, 2005, H.Rept. 109-
360 (Washington: GPO, 2005), p. 801.Hereafter cited as H.Rept. 109-360.
48 The American Academy of Diplomacy and the Henry L. Stimson Center have argued that “the Secretary of State has
and should have responsibility for assuring that all foreign and security assistance is carried out in accord with U.S.
foreign policy, including setting overall policy, approving countries to receive assistance, and setting the budget for
such assistance.” (A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future, p. 23.) The authors of this report, drawing on a panel
comprised of former Ambassadors and other State Department personnel, stated that to do otherwise would undermine
the Secretary of State’s responsibility for the “fundamental direction of U.S. foreign policy.” (A Foreign Affairs Budget
for the Future
, p. 12.)
The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Task Force on Nontraditional Security Assistance, while
recognizing Section 1206’s importance to DOD, nevertheless voiced concern that Section 1206 “has the potential to
impinge on State Department leadership in U.S. foreign policy and the authorities given the secretary of state under the
Foreign Assistance Act (FAA).” Representative Robert Andrews and Representative Mark Kirk, co-chairs, Integrating
21st Century Development and Security Assistance: Final Report of the Task Force on Nontraditional Security
Assistance,
Center for Strategic and International Studies, January 2008, p. 7. (On the same page, the report further
notes: “A number of legislators on Capitol Hill have expressed fear that Section 1206 could undermine the coherence
of U.S. foreign policy, by allowing combatant commanders to assist foreign security forces without taking account of
broader U.S. considerations at stake in bilateral and regional relationships.”) Hereafter referred to as Integrating 21st
Century Development and Security Assistance
.)
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
20

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

overseeing foreign assistance and foreign policy. To some analysts, a decision to codify Section
1206 to Title 10 would represent a significant break in the current practice of codifying foreign
assistance (including military assistance that primarily benefits foreign governments, security
forces, and populations) to Title 22 on Foreign Relations, with possible foreign policy
implications. Critics view Section 1206 as one of a number of programs that signal the
“militarization” of U.S. foreign assistance, giving DOD what they view as an undue and
detrimental degree of influence over U.S. foreign relations and damaging to the U.S. image with
foreign populations. Some also have stated that Section 1206 authority “weakens congressional
oversight, including human rights protections.”49
The practice of codifying military assistance in Title 22 rests on the Secretary of State’s statutory
responsibility to ensure the coherence of foreign policy and to provide “continuous supervision
and general direction” of all foreign assistance, including military assistance, and military
education and training. Also at play is the State Department’s traditional role as the primary
provider, through the State Department budget, of security assistance50 (i.e., “assistance to the
internal police forces and military forces of ... [a] foreign nation”).51 The State Department not
only provides military assistance, with DOD support, through FMF and IMET, but also assists
foreign military and other security forces (also at times with DOD support), through the State
Department accounts for peacekeeping operations (PKO), international narcotics control and law
enforcement (INCLE), and nonproliferation, antiterrorism, demining and related programs
(NADR).
The distinction between the U.S. Code titles to which security assistance law is codified is one
reflected in U.S. fiscal law. According to the U.S. Army Operational Law Handbook, security
assistance is funded out of Department of State budgets, except under certain conditions when
DOD may fund training and other assistance. DOD may use its funds (from the Operations and
Maintenance account) to train foreign military forces “only when the purpose is to promote

(...continued)
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) report expresses concrete concerns regarding coherence, transparency,
and fiscal discipline. Authors Cindy Williams and Gordon Adams argue that authority for Section 1206 (as well as for
other security assistance programs) should be vested in the State Department “in order to ensure that security assistance
does not drive or conflict with overall U.S. international engagement.” (Cindy Williams and Gordon Adams,
Strengthening Statecraft and Security: Reforming U.S. Planning and Resource Allocation, MIT Security Studies
Program Occasional Paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, June 2008, p. 21. Hereafter referred to as
Strengthening Statecraft and Security). They view Section 1206 and other recent security assistance authorities as
generally parallel to or duplicating State Department’s traditional security assistance programs. (Other DOD security
assistance authorities specifically discussed in this report are Coalition Support Funds, CERP, and CTFP.) “The risks in
this parallel system of authorities and programs are that security assistance becomes more complex and confusing, that
it is disconnected from overall, long-term U.S. diplomacy and national security strategy, and that money is wasted
through overlapping, uncoordinated, or conflicting efforts,” they wrote. Strengthening Statecraft and Security, p. 70.
49 Adam Isacson, The Pentagon’s military aid role grows, on the Just the Facts website, http://justf.org/blog, January
26, 2010.
50 The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (FAA), Section 622(c)(22 U.S.C. 2382), states that the Secretary of
State, under the direction of the President, “shall be responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction of
economic assistance, military assistance, and military education and training programs, including but not limited to
determining whether there shall be a military assistance (including civic action) or a military education and training
program for a country and the value thereof, to the end that such programs are effectively integrated both at home and
abroad and the foreign policy of the United States is best served thereby.”
51 Lt. Col. William Johnson and Lt. Commander David Lee, editors. The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and
School, U.S. Army, Operational Law Handbook, Charlottesville, VA, 2014, p. 228, http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military-
Law/pdf/operational-law-handbook_2014.pdf. p. 228. Hereafter cited as Operational Law Handbook 2014.
Congressional Research Service
21

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

interoperability, safety, and familiarization with U.S. Forces.”52 DOD may fund other training and
security assistance only if Congress specifically authorizes and appropriates funds for it. 53
Especially in recent years, Congress has explicitly authorized and funded substantial assistance to
foreign militaries to participate in and support coalition or U.S. operations, but with a few
exceptions these have remained temporary law.
On the other hand, DOD has over time differentiated the general purposes of Section 1206 from
those of the State Department-funded military training and equipping through FMF and IMET,
with the implication that Section 1206 is not strictly foreign assistance. Proponents of Section
1206 authority have over the years emphasized its importance as a military tool to further U.S.
security objectives by responding to needs identified by the U.S. military. In contrast, they note
that FMF provides funds for needs identified by the recipients and they present FMF as a political
tool “critical ... for executing our foreign policy” and “key to improving bilateral relationships,
encouraging behavior in the U.S. interest, increasing access and influence, and building capacity
where host-nation and U.S. interests align,” but not necessarily responding to needs identified by
the U.S. military.54 Some critics claim that the distinction has blurred over the years, especially as
some programs appear to be responding to long-standing rather than emerging threats and as FMF
has been used for sustainment, and that Section 1206 has become a tool for combatant commands
to cultivate goodwill and influence as much as to meet U.S. military needs.
However, even if the distinction has blurred, some Section 1206 advocates argue that in an era of
constant and evolving threats, DOD will have a continuing need for high levels of flexible train
and equip funding to meet U.S. military priorities as determined by the combatant commands.55
Some might further argue that the post-World War II State Department-led security assistance
framework is outdated and that a new security assistance architecture—one that would provide
combatant commanders with increased resources and more coherent and targeted authorities—is
needed.
For some who view a continuing need for Section 1206 authority but question codifying it to Title
22 or subsuming it under State Department programs (e.g., incorporating Section 1206’s
counterterrorism function under FMF and its operational training function under IMET, both as
expedited programs) may be possible options, but would involve additional considerations. One

52 Operational Law Handbook 2014, p. 228.
53 Operational Law Handbook 2014, p. 228. While some may view these exceptions may provide a precedent for
codifying security assistance to Title 10, these exceptions are not analogous to Section 1206 in purpose or scope, and
are for lesser amounts. (One exception is the Global Lift and Sustain authority codified at 10 U.S.C. 127d, under which
the Secretary of Defense may provide logistics support, supplies, and services to allied forces participating in a
combined operation with U.S. armed forces, with a limit of $100 million per fiscal year and such services to increase
interoperability with U.S. forces up to $5 million per fiscal year. Other exceptions provide for the payment of expenses
of foreign military and related civilian personnel to attend U.S. military educational institutions and regional centers, to
participate in conferences, seminars, and workshops (and in one case, the Regional Defense Counterterrorism
Fellowship Program, 10 USC 2249c, also training programs).These events are generally of short duration and may be
characterized as military-to-military contacts.
54 OSD letter of January 16, 2009 responding to Members of Congress. The letter further reads: “Because many
countries rely on FMF as a major resource for their military procurement budgets,” FMF allocations are “affected by
host-nation preferences and political engagement,” the letter states.54 In the letter, DOD denied that Section 1206
programs are “as some have claimed, programs historically conducted by the State Department.” The United States
“has not conducted programs like this before.”
55 For instance, one RAND report states that PACOM described the State Department process for determining FMF
country priorities “a black box” unresponsive to “carefully considered theater prioritization and attendant
justifications.” RAND Review of Security Cooperation Mechanisms, p. 41.
Congressional Research Service
22

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

consideration would be whether and how to appropriate or otherwise provide funds to the State
Department for Section 1206 assistance, which some regard as highly unlikely in the current
budget environment.
Some suggest that another option would be to subsume Section 1206 assistance programs under
the Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), which includes authority identical to Section
1206, with modifications as proposed in SASC’s Section 1206 codification proposal. Although a
provision of the FY2012 NDAA (P.L. 112-81, Section 1207), GSCF authority bestows lead
responsibility on the Secretary of State, which to some analysts maintains the traditional division
of labor on security assistance between the State Department and DOD. Some analysts, however,
regard the State Department’s management of GSCF as problematic; further, some favor letting it
expire.56
Implications for DOD Security Cooperation and DOD Roles and Missions
In addition to expressing concern about implications for foreign policy, conferees on the original
Section 1206 legislation stated that the new authority should not “detract from the Department of
Defense’s focus on its core responsibilities, particularly the warfighting tasks for which it is
uniquely suited.”57 Unlike the extensive discussion on Section 1206 and other DOD authorities on
potential foreign policy implications, the potential consequences for DOD of continued Section
1206 activity and funding have not been widely explored.
One possible area of concern is whether Section 1206 is cost-effective. While the $350 million
authorized for Section 1206 assistance is not a large sum in the context of the overall DOD
budget or even the O&M account from which it is taken, some analysts judge the amount
significant enough to warrant scrutiny in a time of tight budgets, especially in the context of other
DOD priorities and programs, including DOD security cooperation programs. DOD, through its
newly created Office of Security Cooperation, is conducting a review of its security cooperation
portfolio to ascertain the most effective use of security cooperation funds.
For some observers, another area of concern might be the possibility that codification would
signal increasing acceptance of the provision of arms and training to foreign countries as a key, if
not a core, DOD function. Such observers may seek greater clarity about the effects of an
increased institutionalization of the training and equipping foreign military forces as a Title 10
role on DOD’s capacity to conduct its core combat mission at a time when the size of the U.S.
military force is being cut.58
As noted above, DOD has argued that security cooperation programs will save money in the long
run. Nevertheless, elevating and expanding the DOD security assistance role may necessitate a
wider range of resources. With increasing emphasis on an area of DOD activity comes the
pressure for more personnel devoted to the mission across a whole range of activities—
developing and administering the programs, developing doctrine, sharing lessons learned, and
educating and training personnel to carry out those missions. (For Section 1206 codification, the
SASC proposal would include administration costs, but there may be associated costs that would

56 See CRS Report R42641, Global Security Contingency Fund: Summary and Issue Overview, by Nina M. Serafino
57H.Rept. 109-360, p. 801.
58 See CRS Report R42493, Army Drawdown and Restructuring: Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew
Feickert.
Congressional Research Service
23

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

not be covered.) In particular, there is a long-standing concern that conventional forces do not
necessarily possess the special teaching and cultural skills to effectively train foreign forces,
necessitating increased training and education for the security assistance mission. Alternatively,
some may contemplate the use of dedicated forces, an option with possible repercussions on the
availability of properly prepared forces for the military’s core combat mission.59 While training
foreign forces is a SOF statutory role, some claim that SOF forces are already overstretched by
that mission.
What Has Been the Effect of the New Section 1206 T&E Authority
for Security Forces?

In the FY2014 NDAA, Congress broadened Section 1206 authority from training and equipping
foreign national military and maritime security forces for CT missions to include the training and
equipping of all security forces for such missions. DOD did not exercise the broadened authority
in FY2014.
The SASC version of the FY2015 NDAA would amend the FY2014 provision to include only
national military forces, national maritime and border security forces, and other security forces
that have a counterterrorism mission. Although the SASC provision narrows the scope of current
law, some sources state that the FY2014 provision is broader than needed. The SASC provision
would permit DOD to use Section 1206 to train and equip counterterrorism forces that are
assigned to a Ministry of the Interior, an authority that DOD has long sought. (Because foreign
counterterrorism units sometimes are configured as civilian forces under foreign Ministries of the
Interior rather than as military forces under Ministries of Defense, some analysts argue that the
lack of authority to train and equip foreign security forces has impeded the United States’ ability
to build foreign CT capabilities.)60 However, because the proposed language states that the
assistance could be provided to “build the capacity of a foreign country’s other security forces
that have a counterterrorism mission,” rather than a foreign country’s national security forces, it
is possible that the scope of this provision would be broader than Ministry of Interior forces.
Some analysts argue that Congress should reserve funding for civilian security force training to
the State Department. Some argue that there are fundamental differences in training civilian and
military personnel and U.S. military forces are suited solely for training the latter. Some stress
that the use of U.S. military forces to train civilian police and other security forces conveys an
undesirable blurring of police and military roles and functions. In addition, DOD training of
police personnel can put a military face on U.S. assistance in a sensitive area, undermining the
concept that civilians should be in the lead on internal security affairs. In some countries, where

59 For instance, one Army Lt. Colonel wrote that every security force assistance (SFA) mission degrades in some
respect the “capability to deter those who would engage us directly.... ” “Just this year [2013], the Army has stated that
we WILL meet fiscal year 2013 mission requirements, which heavily rely on SFA. Yet, we have also stated that in
doing so, we will maintain the military’s equipment at a lower level, not train our forces as much as we have in the
past, and if not deploying, minimally train our formations.” Michael J. Simmering, “The Limitations of Security Force
Assistance and the Capability of the U.S. Army,” Small Wars Journal, August 13, 2013, accessible online at
http://smalwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-limitations-of-security-force-assistance-and-the-capabilities-of the-us-army.
60In January 2008, the final report of the Task Force on Nontraditional Security Assistance at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies (CSIS) recommended the expansion of 1206 authority to include non-military security forces
because of “the operational necessity of working with foreign security forces to advance key counterterrorism objects.”
Integrating 21st Century Development and Security Assistance,
p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
24

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

there may be tensions between military and police forces, such a blurring may cause resentments
and complicate bilateral relations in other areas.
Should Congress Consider Broader Security Assistance Reform?
Discussion about Section 1206 often takes place in the context of a perceived need for broad
security assistance reform. Section 1206 represents a significant part of the security assistance
package, but many analysts are concerned with the problems involving the whole gamut of
security assistance programs under both State Department and DOD authorities.61 Indeed, some
relate the establishment of Section 1206, as well as perceived problems with it, to problems
experienced with traditional State Department authorities: “The current [State Department]
mechanisms, some of which reflect statutory requirements, are antiquated and slow to respond to
changing security threats, one of the explanations for DOD’s expanded assistance portfolio in
recent years,” according to one report.62 Some analysts question whether Section 1206 authority
would be needed at all if the systems carrying out traditional security assistance authorities were
provided sufficient funds and personnel, and were reorganized to operate more efficiently.
Several reports reviewing security assistance programs, authorities, and resources have
recommended substantial reforms that, although several years old, proponents still consider
desirable. The MIT report mentioned in a section above advocates the creation of “a new
architecture that is agile, flexible and adequately funded to deal with the new security challenges”
and that “can and should make ample use of DOD’s capabilities.”63 Specific recommendations
call for changes that would improve strategic planning, policy coherence, interagency
coordination, budgeting procedures, transparency, and discipline, and congressional oversight.
Among their suggestions where Congress has a direct role are the following:64
• Restructure security assistance authorities by grouping State Department and
DOD authorities to create new programs.
• Expand contingency authority for all security assistance, and provide multiyear
funding in order to provide the State Department and DOD with broader
discretion to reallocate and target funds as requirements change.
• Consolidate security assistance budgets, with the executive branch agencies
presenting a single, multiagency, security assistance budget. (Some would
emphasize the need for a single counterterrorism budget.)65

61 According to the report by the American Academy of Diplomacy and the Henry L. Stimson Center, one of “the most
striking trends during the past two decades has been the growing role of the Defense Department in providing foreign
assistance under its own statutory authorities ... by the end of the 1990s ... DOD was directly managing 15 security
assistance programs accounting for well over $1 billion annually.” A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future, p. 22.
62 A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future, p. 23.
63 Strengthening Statecraft and Security, p. 71. This recommendation would place the new architecture under State
Department authority, however.
64 This section draws principally on specific recommendations made in three reports: Strengthening Statecraft and
Security, A Foreign Affairs Budget for the Future
, and Integrating 21st Century Development and Security Assistance,
although other reports may have similar proposals. Related proposals are contained in Beyond Assistance: The HELP
Commission Report on Foreign Assistance Reform
, December, 2007, and Project on National Security Reform,
Forging a New Shield, November 2008, as well as other publications.
65 See Integrating 21st Century Development and Security Assistance, p. 38, which recommends that “DOD, State and
USAID present relevant congressional committees with a joint CT security assistance budget as part of a broader effort
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
25

Security Assistance Reform: “Section 1206” Background and Issues for Congress

• Consider joint congressional hearings on security assistance programs, involving
both defense and foreign policy authorization and appropriations committees.66
The Obama Administration has been reviewing means to improve security assistance delivery and
programs. In April 2013, the President released Presidential Policy Directive 23 (PPD-23) on U.S.
Security Sector Assistance Policy, establishing a new interagency framework for planning,
implementing, assessing, and overseeing security sector assistance (SSA) to foreign governments
and international organizations. A PDD-23 fact sheet67 cites nine goals for the SSA framework,
including consistency with broader national security goals, policy coherence, interagency
collaboration, comprehensive strategies, better use of resources, and the need to respond to urgent
crises, emergent opportunities, and changes in partner security environments, among others.


Author Contact Information

Nina M. Serafino

Specialist in International Security Affairs
nserafino@crs.loc.gov, 7-7667



(...continued)
to require executive branch transparency on how State, USAID, and DOD budgets fit together.” (p. 38)
66 Strengthening Statecraft and Security, p. 75.
67 White House fact sheet, “Fact Sheet: U.S. Security Assistance Policy,” April 5, 2013, http://www.whitehouse.gov/
the-press-office/2013/04/05/fact-sheet-us-security-sector-assistance-policy.
Congressional Research Service
26