The Foreign Service Journal, March 2007

mally consider to be a soldier’s job; for example, digging wells, building schools and providing public affairs pro- gramming. The defense attaché has long been an important member of the embassy team. He serves as the ambas- sador’s adviser on military issues and the contact with the host nation’s military. Depending on the quantity of mil- itary assistance, the embassy also hosts an Office of Defense Cooperation, which is the in-country coordina- tor of such programs as the Foreign Military Financing Program; the Global Peace Operations Initiative, a train- and-equip program for international peacekeepers; and the International Military Education and Training Pro- gram. FMF, GPOI and IMET are funded in the civilian foreign affairs budget, directed by the Secretary of State, and carried out by the Defense Department. The level of assistance available in the foreign affairs 150 account for security assistance is a consistent source of frustration for Defense Department officials. Euro- pean Command officials pointed out that only $6 million in FMF funding was available for their entire region of responsibility in Africa. There has been a longstanding question as to whether such security assistance programs should be funded from the civilian foreign affairs budget or the military budget. When the issue has arisen in the past, the decision has been made both in the executive and legislative branches that they should remain in the 150 foreign affairs account under the authority of the Secretary of State. This is rooted in the fundamental belief that determinations as to what countries should receive U.S. military equipment and training, and the extent and type of such training, are fundamentally a for- eign policy decision. Section 1206 Security Assistance. In Afghanistan and Iraq the executive branch requested, and the legisla- tive branch granted the Department of Defense, the authority and funding to train and equip the militaries and police forces in both countries without going through the State Department. The Department of Defense also received authority to reimburse coalition partners for logistical and military support provided in Iraq and Af- ghanistan. Subsequently, the executive branch requested that these train-and-equip authorities be extended world- wide. Department of Defense officials, uniformed and civil- ian, argued that the department needed the new author- ity for time-sensitive and urgent terrorism threats to the United States that could not wait for the normal budget process applicable to the traditional programs under State Department authority. They also argued that the additional amounts necessary in a post-9/11 world would not be possible from the strapped 150 account foreign affairs budget. In response, the legislative branch granted but cir- cumscribed the requested authority in the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act. Called Section 1206 assis- tance after its place in the bill, the amount of the assis- tance was limited to $200 million, as opposed to the $750 million requested, and [was] allowed only for training and equipping military rather than police forces. It mandat- ed that the president direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct the programs, in order to ensure interagency vetting overseen by the Office of Management and Budget. The law also requires that the Secretaries of Defense and State “jointly formulate” any program and that it be “coordinated” with the Secretary of State in implementation. The law also requires that the Section 1206 program comply with various laws generally applic- F O C U S 54 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / M A R C H 2 0 0 7 © 2007, The Washington Post Writers Group. Reprinted with permission.