The New Theology: Building Partner Capacity
The New Theology: Building Partner Capacity
by Nathan Freier
Download the full article: The New Theology: Building Partner Capacity
In a recent Foreign Affairs commentary, Secretary Gates again extolled the virtues of “building partner capacity” (BPC) — a cornerstone of contemporary defense policy and a key mission area in the QDR. The common Pentagon narrative on BPC holds that in a world where terrorists, insurgents, cartels, mobs, and proliferators pose fundamental security hazards, the best defense is local. In short, we don’t fight ourselves; we make others better at fighting for us. At its foundation, BPC posits that training and equipping foreign security forces is a cheaper and more effective way of extending U.S. influence into areas where it is otherwise difficult to do so. A note of caution is in order. There is precious little room for error in BPC, as the distinction between true partner and unreliable mercenary picket is less clear than most appreciate.
Today, in an era of declining discretionary defense resources, finding efficiencies is essential. “Cheaper” and “more effective” are popular concepts. After all, the secretary already warned that the resource “gusher” is off indefinitely. Thus, competing DoD choices will soon become zero sum propositions. Key among them — the tension between investing in prevention via BPC and hedging against prevention’s failure through prudent investment in contingency response. In the current environment, one’s gain may be the other’s loss. Thus, caution is warranted when deciding where and how to proceed with BPC.
Download the full article: The New Theology: Building Partner Capacity
Nathan Freier is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and a Visiting Professor at the Army War College’s Peacekeeping and Stability Operations Institute.
