Going forward, threats to U.S. national interests are likely to increase, even as the list of increasingly bold adversaries continues to grow by the day. Geopolitical shifts are also likely to threaten globe peace and order. Threats to the national interests of the U.S. could also be seen as threats to the country’s allies. Former secretary Carter once pointed out that thanks to the United States’ core interests, Israel is assured of “continued qualitative military edge, and why we’re working with our Gulf partners to make them more capable of defending themselves against external aggression” (Cordersman, 2015). On the basis of these facts, the U.S., as the only superpower, ought to foster closer working relations between its Army and those of other countries so as to better address emerging global threats and other challenges.Building partner capacity is not a new issue. However, as Marquis et al. (2010) points out, it is not until recently that this concept “migrated to positions near the top of the U.S. national security agenda.” In essence, there are three kinds of potential partners in capacity building efforts that have been identified by Marquis et al. 2010. These are coalition partners, regional leaders, and indigenous partners. The authors define a coalition partner as “a willing provider of significant stability operations-related capability in support of coalition operations outside the nation’s own boarders” (Marquis et al. 2010). In essence, such a partner, as the authors further point, out ought to be internally stable, have a strategic ‘chemistry’ or rapport with the U.S., and have the recognition of the international community as a legitimate government. A regional leader, on the other hand, is viewed as “an actual or potential provider of capability and leadership for regionally based stability operations...
interests” (Marquis et al. 2010). Lastly, we have indigenous partners which as Marquis et al. (2010) observe are states that are rather fragile but cooperative and friendly to the U.S. and whose ‘demise’ could threaten the interests of the United States.
It is important to note that capacity and capability building with collaborator armies is fraught with a number of challenges. In typical collaboration efforts, each player has an interest it attempts to secure. Collaboration becomes sustainable with the alignment of these interests. Collaboration efforts also come with a significant degree of inherent risks. These include the risk of collaborating with free riders, and reliability concerns when working with some formations. Assessments should, thereby, be made by the DoD to ensure that partnering Armies not only have the resources, but are also truly invested and involved. An assessment of the political suitability of partners is also a key consideration. According to Reveron (2016), the U.S. deems democratic governments as being acceptable in matters of partnership capacity building due to their democratic ideals; i.e. promotion of basic freedoms and sustenance of credible electoral and justice systems. Partnering with such governments in military operations is seen as the right thing to do given the inherent risks of training rogue governments that could turn the skills and capabilities gained against own citizens.
The war on terror could benefit immensely from partnership and collaboration efforts. According to Marquis et al. (2010), the U.S. army ought to ensure that its war on terror is sustainable. This is more so the case given that it is unlikely that we are going to witness another occupation or invasion any time soon. Arguing for building partner capacity in the war against terror, Marquis et al. (2010) points…
