Abstract
Foreign military training has become a key component of the United States’ security policy. What explains the variation in US training allocation across countries and over time? Past work on security assistance, such as training, focuses on its effectiveness and consequences, largely overlooking questions about which countries receive it in the first place. To understand what drives US military training partnerships, we conducted a global statistical analysis of training from 1999 to 2018, structured around four logics: building relationships through defense diplomacy, deterrence against external, interstate threats, capacity-building in fragile states, and promoting democratic norms to advance democracy around the world. We find that the four logics receive support, with relationship-building and response to interstate and internal threats most consistently so. This analysis demonstrates the different ways the United States has used training in support of the US-led global order and raises questions about how to achieve accountability given these multiple logics. More broadly, the findings also have relevance for understanding how other states allocate training in conjunction with, in emulation of, or in opposition to the United States.