CRS INSIGHT
Security Cooperation and the FY2017 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA)
July 27, 2016 (IN10538)
|
Defense Appropriations
s
Liana W. Rosen
Nina M. Serafino
View More...
|
Liana W. Rosen, Specialist in International Crime and Narcotics (lrosen@crs.loc.gov, 7-6177)
Nina M. Serafino, Specialist in International Security Affairs (nserafino@crs.loc.gov, 7-7667)
Kathleen J. McInnis, Analyst in International Security (kmcinnis@crs.loc.gov, 7-1416)
Bolko J. Skorupski, Research Assistant (bskorupski@crs.loc.gov, 7-9450)
Introduction
Provisions in the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) have elevated ongoing debates
over U.S.
security sector assistance to foreign countries—and raised questions over whether the policy architecture is suited to
meet current and emerging requirements. The State Department has historically served as the lead agency for
overarching policy in this area, with primary security assistance authorities outlined in Title 22 (Foreign Relations) of
the U.S. Code. Over time, Congress has granted the Department of Defense (DOD) new mechanisms under Title 10
(Armed Services) to engage in "security cooperation" with foreign military forces and other security forces—now
recognized as one of DOD's priority tools for executing its national security responsibilities.
Incremental adjustments to DOD's Title 10 authorities have resulted in a "patchwork" of some 80 or more provisions.
Congress enacted many of these to respond to emerging needs, but imposed limits on their scope, application, and
duration, based on country-specific concerns. For more than a decade, DOD's authorities (and funding) have grown with
its counterterrorism responsibilities, involvement in overseas contingency operations, evolving national security
priorities, and efforts to counter asymmetrical threats. Some view today's mix of provisions as an obstacle to effective
planning and execution of DOD objectives. Some also view the patchwork as problematic for State Department
