Security assistance training was separated from the controversial Military Assistance
Program (MAP) by the 94th Congress. Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
Congress established a new grant assistance program with the International Security
Assistance Act of 1976. This program was entitled International Military Education and
Training (IMET) and was intended to assist countries that were unable to purchase U.S.
military training using the Foreign Military Sales Act. In essence, the U.S. uses a dual
track strategy of selling foreign military training to wealthier states and providing a
grant for aid to those who cannot afford such training. Wealthier states use FMS,
frequently at lower rates, to buy technical training related to the operation,
maintenance, and management of equipment purchased from any of the services within the
Department of Defense. Other purchases through the FMS program include U.S. professional
military education for junior and middle-grade officers with demonstrated leadership
potential, and counter-narcotics training. Less well-off states utilize the grant
International Military Education and Training, managed by the Defense Security Assistance Agency. The importance of
making the distinction between IMET and FMS funded training is exemplified by the correct
use of the acronym IMET for the formal grant program and the frequently misapplied
designator for the entire foreign training program.
Back to top
International Military Education and Training
(IMET )
Expanded-IMET
Antiterrorism Assistance Program
International Narcotics Control (INC)
International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP)
Back to top
Recommendations/Conclusions
Programs governed and/or funded by the Foreign Assistance Act and
the Arms Export Control Act and managed by the State Department generally seem to be the
least offensive of foreign military training programs. This has much to do with the State
Department's reporting practices for military-related programs. DOS reporting practices
enable Congress to more easily exercise their oversight responsibilities. Foreign aid,
especially security assistance, is reliably a contentious issue in Congressional budget
discussions. In order to persuade Congress to approve its foreign aid request, the
Department of State must make a convincing case to justify the programs it wants funded.
Therefore, significant reporting is provided in the annual budget justification documents
forwarded to Congress. The foreign aid appropriations bills themselves contain their own
mandatory notification and reporting requirements on military-related programs. Department
of State reporting frequently goes beyond what is legally required, making transparent
reporting the norm for programs administered by the Department of State. It is worth
noting that, comparatively speaking, the ratio of dollars appropriated to congressional
staff responsible for oversight is much smaller with programs administered by the
Department of State than with the Department of Defense. On the other hand, Congress has
had difficulty monitoring the Department of Defense's activities due to lacks in reporting
and public information.
Back to top
A great deal of Defense Department training, such as
exercises, deployments, and special forces activities, is not considered "security
assistance" because its primary purpose is to train the U.S. forces involved.
Therefore, in many cases, eligibility and reporting requirements do not currently apply to
these programs funded under other than Department of State budgets. As a result, the
Department of Defense programs have attracted the most vocal criticism, as was the case
recently when it was reported that U.S. training for the Indonesian military prohibited in
the foreign aid bill was carried out by U.S. special forces with Department of Defense
funding. This section describes and Department of Defense programs in which training the
military personnel of a foreign country is a central focus.