journals.sagepub.com Open in urlscan Pro
104.18.26.122  Public Scan

Form analysis
7 forms found in the DOM

Name: sageDoLogin — POST /action/doLogin

<form action="/action/doLogin" id="frmLogin" name="sageDoLogin" method="post"><input type="hidden" name="id" value="31cd2b6a-0532-43f7-a669-f27ad84bf45e" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
  <input type="hidden" name="submitViaAJAX" value="true" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
  <input type="hidden" name="redirectUri" value="/doi/10.1177/00223433211047715" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
  <span role="alert" class="useAJAX_error" style="display: none;">The email address and/or password entered does not match our records, please check and try again. </span>
  <span role="alert" class="error useAJAX_error_notVerified ajaxError" style="display: none;">
  </span>
  <div class="input-group">
    <div class="label">
      <label class="required" for="login">Email (required):<span class="required-marker" aria-hidden="true">*</span></label>
      <span role="alert" class="error useAJAX_error_emptyEmail ajaxError" style="display: none;">
      </span>
    </div>
    <input id="login" class="login textInput" aria-invalid="false" aria-required="true" type="text" name="login" value="" size="15" placeholder="Email address" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
  </div>
  <div class="input-group">
    <div class="label">
      <label class="required" for="password">Password (required):<span class="required-marker" aria-hidden="true">*</span></label>
      <span role="alert" class="error useAJAX_error_emptyPassword ajaxError" style="display: none;">
      </span>
    </div>
    <input id="password" class="password textInput" aria-invalid="false" aria-required="true" type="password" name="password" value="" autocomplete="off" placeholder="Password" showarearequired="true" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
  </div>
  <div class="actions raa-requestResetPassword">
    <a href="/action/requestResetPassword" class="link show-request-reset-password" onfocus="hideAuthor();">Forgotten your password?</a>
  </div>
  <div class="remember">
    <div class="keepMeLogin">
      <input id="31cd2b6a-0532-43f7-a669-f27ad84bf45e-remember" class="cmn-toggle cmn-toggle-round-flat" type="checkbox" name="remember" value="true" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
      <label class="tgl-btn" for="31cd2b6a-0532-43f7-a669-f27ad84bf45e-remember"></label>
      <span class="label">Remember me</span>
    </div>
  </div>
  <div class="submit" disabled="disabled">
    <input class="formbutton defButton" type="submit" name="loginSubmit" value="Sign in" data-item-name="sign-in" aria-label="Sign In to my profile" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
  </div>
</form>

---

Name: frmYMDoLogin — POST /action/ymDoLogin

<form action="/action/ymDoLogin" id="frmYMDoLogin" name="frmYMDoLogin" method="post">
  <div class="sage-sso-label">Members of _ can log in with their society credentials below</div>
  <div class="richTextDropZone" data-pb-dropzone="richTextDropZone">
  </div>
  <table class="loginForm" summary="">
  </table>
  <table class="loginForm" summary="">
    <tbody>
      <tr>
        <th><label for="sso-login" class="userNameLoginLabel">Username <span class="required-field">(required)</span></label></th>
        <td>
          <input id="sso-login" class="textInput" type="text" name="login" value="" size="15" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <th><label for="sso-password" class="passwordLoginLabel">Password <span class="required-field">(required)</span></label></th>
        <td>
          <input id="sso-password" class="textInput" type="password" name="password" value="" autocomplete="off" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <th><label for="society" class="memberSSOSocietiesList">Society <span class="required-field">(required)</span></label></th>
        <td>
          <select name="society" class="sso-select-society" id="society-token-f2fc11e2-1981-45c8-a8b9-54b2f83b9a3c">
            <option value="ISREAPI">The Int Society for Research on Emotion</option>
            <option value="ACV">American College of Veterinary Pathologists</option>
          </select>
        </td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>
  <input type="hidden" name="redirectUri" value="/doi/10.1177/00223433211047715" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
  <input type="hidden" name="loginUri" value="/doi/10.1177/00223433211047715" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
  <input type="hidden" name="submitViaAJAX" value="true" onfocus="hideSubmenu();">
  <span class="useAJAX_SSO_error error" style="display: none;" role="alert">Login failed. Please check you selected the correct society from the list and entered the user name and password you use to log in to your society website.</span>
  <input class="sso-submit-button defButton" role="button" type="submit" name="submit" value="Sign in" tabindex="0" aria-label="Sign In via a society" onfocus="hideSubmenu();"><br>
</form>

---

Name: quickSearch — GET /action/doSearch

<form action="/action/doSearch" id="quickSearch" name="quickSearch" class="quickSearchForm " style="padding-left: 0px" title="Quick Search" method="get">
  <div class="qsFilterOption-div">
    <select class="filterOption" name="filterOption">
      <option value="allJournal" data-item-name="search-all-journals">Search all journals</option>
      <option value="thisJournal" data-item-name="search-this-journal" selected="">Search this journal</option>
    </select>
  </div>
  <input id="sKey" type="hidden" name="SeriesKey" value="jpra">
  <span class="simpleSearchBoxContainer" id="meme">
    <input name="AllField" class="searchText main-search-field autocomplete ui-autocomplete-input" value="" type="search" id="searchText" title="Type search term here" placeholder="Search: keywords, title, authors, DOI" autocomplete="off"
      data-history-items-conf="0" data-publication-titles-conf="3" data-publication-items-conf="4" data-topics-conf="0" data-contributors-conf="3" data-display-labels="true" data-fuzzy-suggester="true">
  </span>
  <input class="mainSearchButton searchButtons pointer" title="search" type="submit" value="Search">
</form>

---

POST /action/doUpdateAlertSettings

<form method="post" action="/action/doUpdateAlertSettings" onsubmit="return publicationBrowser.alertDialog.setAction($('.journalHomeAlerts'))">
  <input class="alerts-action" type="hidden" value="addJournal" name="action">
  <input type="hidden" name="referrer" value="/doi/10.1177/00223433211047715">
  <table>
    <thead>
      <tr>
        <th> Journal</th>
        <th> New Content </th>
        <th> Announcements </th>
      </tr>
    </thead>
    <tbody>
      <tr class="journal-row">
        <td>Journal of Peace Research</td>
        <td>
          <input class="new-content-alerts" type="checkbox" value="jpra" name="journalCode" data-alert-type="new-content-alerts" onchange="checkedChanged(this)">
        </td>
        <td>
          <input class="announcements-alerts" type="checkbox" value="L753,jpra" name="code" data-alert-type="announcements-alerts" onchange="checkedChanged(this)">
        </td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>
  <input type="submit" data-item-name="create-email-alert" value="Add Alerts" aria-disabled="true">
  <input type="button" data-item-name="cancel-email-alert" class="cancel close-add-alerts-dialog" value="cancel" onclick="panelToggleFixed('journalHomeAlerts,journalHomeAlerts2', 'journalHomeAlerts'); return false;">
</form>

---

Name: frmCitmgr — POST /action/downloadCitation

<form action="/action/downloadCitation" name="frmCitmgr" method="post" target="_blank"><input type="hidden" name="doi" value="10.1177/00223433211047715">
  <input type="hidden" name="downloadFileName" value="sage_jpra59_286"><input type="hidden" name="include" value="abs">
  <table summary="">
    <tbody>
      <tr>
        <td>
          <span class="copy-cite-label">How to cite this article</span>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr class="formats">
        <th>Style</th>
        <td>
          <span>
            <fieldset class="format-select">
              <span class="select-container">
                <select data-csl-doi="10.1177/00223433211047715" id="select_citation_style" name="format">
                  <option value="" selected="selected">Select style</option>
                  <option value="ama">AMA</option>
                  <option value="apa">APA</option>
                  <option value="chicago">Chicago</option>
                  <option value="mla">MLA</option>
                  <option value="harvard">Harvard</option>
                </select>
              </span>
            </fieldset>
          </span>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr class="cls-res">
        <td>
          <span id="cls-response" class="cls-response"></span>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td class="submit" colspan="2">
          <a href="javascript:;" id="copyToClipBoard" class="formbutton" data-item-name="copy-citation" onfocus="hideAuthor();">Copy to Clipboard</a>
          <div id="copy-notice" style="display:none">Citation copied to clipboard.</div>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr class="formats">
        <th>Format</th>
        <td>
          <span>
            <fieldset class="format-select">
              <span class="select-container">
                <select id="slct_format" name="format">
                </select>
              </span>
            </fieldset>
          </span>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <input type="hidden" name="direct" value="true">
      <tr>
        <td class="helpLink" colspan="2">
          <a href="/help?context=citationManager" onclick="popupHelp(this.href); return false;" class="link downloadCitationTipsLink" title="Opens new window" target="_blank" onfocus="hideAuthor();">Tips on citation download</a>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td>
          <span class="download-label">Download Citation</span>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td class="submit" colspan="2">
          <input onclick="download()" class="formbutton" type="submit" name="submit" value="Download Citation" data-item-name="download-citation">
        </td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>
</form>

---

Name: frmCitmgr — POST /action/downloadCitation

<form action="/action/downloadCitation" name="frmCitmgr" method="post" target="_blank"><input type="hidden" name="doi" value="10.1177/00223433211047715">
  <input type="hidden" name="downloadFileName" value="sage_jpra59_286"><input type="hidden" name="include" value="abs">
  <table summary="">
    <tbody>
      <tr class="formats">
        <th>Format</th>
        <td>
          <span>
            <fieldset class="format-select">
              <span class="select-container">
                <select id="slct_format1" name="format">
                  <option value="ris" selected="selected">RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager)</option>
                  <option value="endnote">EndNote</option>
                  <option value="bibtex">BibTeX</option>
                  <option value="medlars">Medlars</option>
                  <option value="refworks">RefWorks</option>
                </select>
              </span>
            </fieldset>
          </span>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <input type="hidden" name="direct" value="true">
      <tr>
        <td class="helpLink" colspan="2">
          <a href="/help?context=citationManager" onclick="popupHelp(this.href); return false;" class="link downloadCitationTipsLink" title="Opens new window" target="_blank" onfocus="hideAuthor();">Tips on citation download</a>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td>
          <span class="download-label">Download Citation</span>
        </td>
      </tr>
      <tr>
        <td class="submit" colspan="2">
          <input onclick="download()" class="formbutton" type="submit" name="submit" value="Download Citation" data-item-name="download-citation">
        </td>
      </tr>
    </tbody>
  </table>
</form>

---

POST /action/showMailPage

<form action="/action/showMailPage" id="showMailPage" method="post">
  <p> Email a link to the following content: <a href="" onfocus="hideAuthor();"></a>
  </p>
  <br>
  <br>
  <label for="mailTo" accesskey="t"><span style="color: red">*</span>Recipient's Email Address:</label>
  <br>
  <input id="mailTo" type="text" name="mailTo" value="" size="50">
  <br>
  <br>
  <label for="mailFrom"><span style="color: red">*</span>Your Email:</label>
  <br>
  <input id="mailFrom" type="text" name="mailFrom" value="" size="50">
  <br>
  <br>
  <label for="name">Your Name:</label>
  <br>
  <input id="name" type="text" name="name" value="" size="50">
  <br>
  <br>
  <label for="subject" accesskey="s"><span style="color: red">*</span>Subject:</label>
  <br>
  <input id="subject" type="text" name="subject" value="Interesting article from SAGE Journals" size="50">
  <br>
  <br>
  <input id="sendCopy" style="float:left;" type="checkbox" name="sendCopy" value="true"><label for="sendCopy" accesskey="c" class="checkBox">Send me a copy of this email</label>
  <br>
  <br>
  <br>
  <div class="clearfix"></div>
  <div class="label">
    <label for="captchaCode" class="prompt required" style="white-space: nowrap">Retype the code from the picture:</label>
  </div>
  <link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="/botdetectcaptcha?get=layoutStyleSheet">
  <div class="LBD_CaptchaDiv" id="sampleCaptcha" style="width: 280px !important; height: 50px !important">
    <div class="LBD_CaptchaImageDiv" id="sampleCaptcha_CaptchaImageDiv" style="width: 250px !important; height: 50px !important">
      <a target="_blank" href="http://captcha.com/java-captcha-info.html" onclick="sampleCaptcha.OnHelpLinkClick(); return sampleCaptcha.FollowHelpLink;" rel="noopener" onfocus="hideAuthor();"><img class="LBD_CaptchaImage" id="sampleCaptcha_CaptchaImage" src="/botdetectcaptcha?get=image&amp;c=sampleCaptcha&amp;t=1e80a163e16b40fd831556d2adb78fed" alt="CAPTCHA"></a>
    </div>
    <div class="LBD_CaptchaIconsDiv" id="sampleCaptcha_CaptchaIconsDiv" style="width: 24px !important;">
      <a class="LBD_ReloadLink" id="sampleCaptcha_ReloadLink" href="#" onclick="sampleCaptcha.ReloadImage(); this.blur(); return false;" title="Change the CAPTCHA code" onfocus="hideAuthor();" style="display: inline-block !important;"> <img class="LBD_ReloadIcon" id="sampleCaptcha_ReloadIcon" src="/botdetectcaptcha?get=ReloadIcon" alt="Change the CAPTCHA code"></a><a id="sampleCaptcha_SoundLink" class="LBD_SoundLink" href="/botdetectcaptcha?get=sound&amp;c=sampleCaptcha&amp;t=1e80a163e16b40fd831556d2adb78fed" onclick="sampleCaptcha.PlaySound(); this.blur(); return false;" title="Speak the CAPTCHA code" onfocus="hideAuthor();"> <img class="LBD_SoundIcon" id="sampleCaptcha_SoundIcon" src="/botdetectcaptcha?get=SoundIcon" alt="Speak the CAPTCHA code"></a>
      <div class="LBD_Placeholder" id="sampleCaptcha_AudioPlaceholder">&nbsp;</div>
    </div>
    <script type="text/javascript" src="/botdetectcaptcha?get=clientScriptInclude"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript">
      //<![CDATA[
      BotDetect.Init('sampleCaptcha', '1e80a163e16b40fd831556d2adb78fed', 'captchaCode', true, true, true, true, 1200, 7200, 0);
      //]]>
    </script>
    <script type="text/javascript">
      //<![CDATA[
      try {
        (function() {
          var bdrsn = document.createElement('script');
          bdrsn.type = 'text/javascript';
          bdrsn.async = true;
          bdrsn.src = document.location.protocol + '//remote.captcha.com/include.js?i=ATABMwExATMBMAJBMhQ_dj8qPz9gPwk_P0U_Rj8_Lz8_Pw';
          var fsn = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];
          fsn.parentNode.insertBefore(bdrsn, fsn);
        })();
      } catch (err) {}
      //]]>
    </script>
    <input type="hidden" id="LBD_VCID_sampleCaptcha" name="LBD_VCID_sampleCaptcha" value="1e80a163e16b40fd831556d2adb78fed">
  </div>
  <input type="hidden" value="1" id="LBD_BackWorkaround_sampleCaptcha">
  <div class="validationDiv">
    <input type="hidden" name="loginBotCaptcha" value="">
    <input id="captchaCode" aria-invalid="false" type="text" name="captchaCode" aria-required="true" style="text-transform: uppercase;">
  </div>
  <input type="hidden" name="type" value=""><input type="hidden" name="href" value="/doi/10.1177/00223433211047715"><input type="hidden" name="title"
    value="Tracking the rise of United States foreign military training: IMTAD-USA, a new dataset and research agenda">
  <br>
  <br>
  <input class="blueButton defButton" type="submit" name="submitForm" value="Send" data-item-name="share-email">
</form>

---

Text Content

WE VALUE YOUR PRIVACY

We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies
and process personal data, such as unique identifiers and standard information
sent by a device for personalised ads and content, ad and content measurement,
and audience insights, as well as to develop and improve products.
With your permission we and our partners may use precise geolocation data and
identification through device scanning. You may click to consent to our and our
partners’ processing as described above. Alternatively you may click to refuse
to consent or access more detailed information and change your preferences
before consenting.
Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your
consent, but you have a right to object to such processing. Your preferences
will apply to this website only. You can change your preferences at any time by
returning to this site or visit our privacy policy.
DECLINE ALLMORE OPTIONSACCEPT ALL

Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals

0 Cart


MENU

 * Search
 * Browse
 * Resources
   * Authors
   * Librarians
   * Editors
   * Societies
   * Reviewers
 * Advanced Search

IN THIS JOURNAL

 * Journal Home
 * Browse Journal
   * Current Issue
   * OnlineFirst
   * Browse by Special Issue
   * All Issues
   * Replication Datasets
   * Free Sample
   * JPR Best Visualization Awards
   * JPR Article of the Year Awards
   * Editors Picks
 * Journal Info
   * Journal Description
   * Aims and Scope
   * Editorial Board
   * Submission Guidelines
   * Abstracting/Indexing
   * Reprints
   * Journal Permissions
   * Subscribe
   * Recommend to Library
   * Advertising & Promotion
 * Stay Connected
   * Email Alerts
   * RSS Feed
   * Feedback / Contact SAGE
 * Submit Paper

Advanced Search
 * Search
 * Browse
 * Resources
   * Authors
   * Librarians
   * Editors
   * Societies
   * Reviewers
 * Advanced Search

0 View Cart
Access Options:
Sign In
Institution
Society


ACCESS OPTIONS

You can be signed in via any or all of the methods shown below at the same time.


MY PROFILE

Sign in here to access free tools such as favourites and alerts, or to access
personal subscriptions

The email address and/or password entered does not match our records, please
check and try again.
Email (required):*
Password (required):*
Forgotten your password?
Remember me


I don't have a profile

Create Profile

I am signed in as:

View My Account

Logout


With my free profile I can:

 * Set up favourite journals and register for email alerts
 * List saved searches
 * Edit account details
 * Activate personal subscriptions and access content


INSTITUTIONAL LOGIN

If you have access to journal content via a university, library or employer,
sign in here

Loading institutional login options...



If you have access to journal content via a university, library or employer,
sign in here

Access through your institution
Add or Change Institution
Recommend to your library

Research off-campus without worrying about access issues. Find out about Lean
Library here

With institutional access I can:

 * View or download all content the institution has subscribed to.


SOCIETY

If you have access to journal via a society or associations, read the
instructions below

Members of _ can log in with their society credentials below




Username (required) Password (required) Society (required) The Int Society for
Research on Emotion American College of Veterinary Pathologists

Login failed. Please check you selected the correct society from the list and
entered the user name and password you use to log in to your society website.


Access to society journal content varies across our titles.

If you have access to a journal via a society or association membership, please
browse to your society journal, select an article to view, and follow the
instructions in this box.

Contact us if you experience any difficulty logging in.

Need Help?

Some society journals require you to create a personal profile, then activate
your society account

Activate my Society Account

I am signed in via:

Institution

my society or association

Logout


With society access I can:

 * View or download all the content the society has access to.

Research off-campus without worrying about access issues. Find out more and
recommend Lean Library.

Need Help? Contact SAGE

Need Help? Contact SAGE
0 Cart




Journal of Peace Research

4.054
Impact Factor
5-Year Impact Factor 5.035
Journal Indexing & Metrics »
 * Journal Home
 * Browse Journal
   * Current Issue
   * OnlineFirst
   * Browse by Special Issue
   * All Issues
   * Replication Datasets
   * Free Sample
   * JPR Best Visualization Awards
   * JPR Article of the Year Awards
   * Editors Picks
 * Journal Info
   * Journal Description
   * Aims and Scope
   * Editorial Board
   * Submission Guidelines
   * Abstracting/Indexing
   * Reprints
   * Journal Permissions
   * Subscribe
   * Recommend to Library
   * Advertising & Promotion
 * Stay Connected
   * Email Alerts
   * RSS Feed
   * Feedback / Contact SAGE
 * Submit Paper

Search
Search all journals Search this journal
Advanced Search




ADD EMAIL ALERTS

close Add Email Alerts Dialog

You are adding the following journals to your email alerts

Journal New Content Announcements Journal of Peace Research

Contents


FULL ARTICLE

Content List

 * Abstract
 * Introduction
 * The IMTAD-USA dataset
 * Comparison with existing data
 * Trends and patterns in US training activities
 * Empirical application: A new perspective on military training and coups
   d’état
 * Discussion and avenues of further research
 * Acknowledgments
 * Notes
 * References

Article Menu

Download PDF
Open EPUB

Did you struggle to get access to this article? This product could help you

Accessing resources off campus can be a challenge. Lean Library can solve it


 * FULL ARTICLE
   
   Content List
   
    * Abstract
    * Introduction
    * The IMTAD-USA dataset
    * Comparison with existing data
    * Trends and patterns in US training activities
    * Empirical application: A new perspective on military training and coups
      d’état
    * Discussion and avenues of further research
    * Acknowledgments
    * Notes
    * References


 * FIGURES & TABLES


 * ARTICLE METRICS


   CITE
   
   
   CITATION TOOLS
   
   
   HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE
   
   If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article
   citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your
   manager software from the list below and click on download.
   
   How to cite this article Style Select styleAMAAPAChicagoMLAHarvard Copy to
   Clipboard
   Citation copied to clipboard.
   Format Tips on citation download Download Citation
   
   
   Download article citation data for:
   
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
   Tracking the rise of United States foreign military training: IMTAD-USA, a
   new dataset and research agenda
   Theodore McLauchlin, Lee JM Seymour, and Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel
   Journal of Peace Research 2022 59:2, 286-296
   
   
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
   
   DOWNLOAD CITATION
   
   If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article
   citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your
   manager software from the list below and click on download.
   
   Format RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager)EndNoteBibTeXMedlarsRefWorks Tips on
   citation download Download Citation
   
   
   Download article citation data for:
   
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
   Tracking the rise of United States foreign military training: IMTAD-USA, a
   new dataset and research agenda
   Theodore McLauchlin, Lee JM Seymour, and Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel
   Journal of Peace Research 2022 59:2, 286-296
   
   
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
   
   SHARE
   
   
   SHARE
   
    * Social Media
    * Email
    * Share Access
   
   Share this article via social media.
   
   Twitter Facebook LinkedIn WeChat AddThis
   
   
   The e-mail addresses that you supply to use this service will not be used for
   any other purpose without your consent.
   
   
   RECOMMEND TO A FRIEND
   
   Email a link to the following content:
   
   
   
   *Recipient's Email Address:
   
   
   *Your Email:
   
   
   Your Name:
   
   
   *Subject:
   
   
   Send me a copy of this email
   
   
   
   
   Retype the code from the picture:
    
   
   
   
   
   
   Sharing links are not available for this article.
   
   For more information view the SAGE Journals Article Sharing page.
   
   Create a link to share a read only version of this article with your
   colleagues and friends. For more information view the SAGE Journals Sharing
   page.
   
   Please read and accept the terms and conditions and check the box to generate
   a sharing link.
   
   I have read and accept the terms and conditions
   
   
   Copy to clipboard
   Share URL copied to clipboard
   
   
   REQUEST PERMISSIONS
   
   View permissions information for this article
   
    * View


 * RELATED ARTICLES

 * Comments



Explore More

Download PDF
Open EPUB


TRACKING THE RISE OF UNITED STATES FOREIGN MILITARY TRAINING: IMTAD-USA, A NEW
DATASET AND RESEARCH AGENDA



Show all authors
Theodore McLauchlin
Theodore McLauchlin
Department of Political Science, Centre d’études sur la paix et la sécurité
internationale, Université de Montréal
View ORCID profile
See all articles by this author
Search Google Scholar for this author
, Lee JM Seymour
Lee JM Seymour
Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal
See all articles by this author
Search Google Scholar for this author
, Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel
Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel
Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal
View ORCID profile
See all articles by this author
Search Google Scholar for this author

First Published February 20, 2022 Research Article
https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433211047715
https://doi.org/10.1177/00223433211047715

Article information 






ARTICLE INFORMATION

Volume: 59 issue: 2, page(s): 286-296
Article first published online: February 20, 2022; Issue published: March 1,
2022

Theodore McLauchlin
Department of Political Science, Centre d’études sur la paix et la sécurité
internationale, Université de Montréal
Lee JM Seymour
Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal
Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel
Department of Political Science, Université de Montréal

Corresponding Author:

theodore.mclauchlin@umontreal.ca
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial
use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission
provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open
Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).


 * Abstract
 * Full Text
 * References
 * PDF
 * 


ABSTRACT

Training other countries’ armed forces is a go-to foreign policy tool for the
United States and other states. A growing literature explores the effects of
military training, but researchers lack detailed data on training activities. To
assess the origins and consequences of military training, as well as changing
patterns over time, this project provides a new, global dataset of US foreign
military training. This article describes the scope of the data along with the
variables collected, coding procedures, and spatial and temporal patterns. We
demonstrate the added value of the data in their much greater coverage of
training activities, showing differences from both existing datasets and
aggregate foreign military aid data. Reanalyzing prior research findings linking
US foreign military training to the risk of coups d’état in recipient states, we
find that this effect is limited to a single US program representing a small
fraction of overall US training activities. The data show comprehensively how
the United States attempts to influence partner military forces in a wide
variety of ways and suggest new avenues of research.

Keywords
aid, coups, military training, security assistance, security cooperation, United
States


INTRODUCTION

Training other countries’ armed forces is an increasingly important foreign
policy tool for the United States and other states. Between 1999 and 2016,
across 34 different programs, the USA trained some 2,395,272 trainees from
virtually every country in the world, peaking at 292,753 in 2008. Iraq and
Afghanistan accounted for over half of these trainees, but even leaving these
two countries aside, the total figure was 971,054, with as many as 78,722
individuals in a single year (2016). The United States spent some $14.8 billion
worldwide on its training efforts and sold training worth another $4.9 billion,
leaving aside the larger expenses of equipping and paying client forces in
countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. The increase in training activities appears
to reflect a concern for state building in a context of transnational security
threats like terrorism, insurgency, and drug trafficking. It also comes as the
USA, in the wake of Afghanistan and Iraq, seeks to limit its own direct costs by
offloading them to local partners. As opposed to other elements of security
assistance, training focuses on human capital. In doing so, in theory it
addresses a critical element of contemporary military power (Talmadge, 2015).
But it impacts not just military capability, but how recipient militaries choose
to use that capacity – a key problem of civil–military relations and governance
(Atkinson, 2006; Savage & Caverley, 2017). By influencing recipient armed
forces’ norms and practices, it aims to improve local partners’ military
capacity while avoiding the dangers of simply sending arms or cash.

To assess the origins and consequences of security assistance, as well as
changing patterns over time, we provide a new, global dataset of US foreign
military training efforts: the International Military Training Activities
Database-USA (IMTAD-USA). This dataset goes beyond existing work by adopting a
global scope and by covering the full array of US training programs, including
key details such as: objectives; activities such as train-and-equip; the
location of training; and characteristics of the forces trained. These
complementary variables allow researchers to go beyond the raw training inputs
to examine specific features that potentially lead to different outcomes. In
other words, IMTAD-USA is a dataset on a key foreign policy tool that has both
comprehensive scope and considerable depth.

These data document a remarkable increase in training over the past two decades,
and efforts directed towards a wider variety of objectives. We trace these
developments and discuss their larger implications, not least the fact that the
expansion over the past two decades suggests a highly general, everyday tool of
international hierarchy. The overall portrait is consistent with the USA seeking
to maintain influence and confront security problems throughout the world while
limiting its commitments by standing up other countries’ armed forces.

Yet training is controversial. We discuss one important debate in reanalyzing
Savage & Caverley’s (2017) finding that training through the International
Military Education & Training (IMET) program increases coup risk. While we
validate this result for IMET specifically, our comprehensive dataset shows that
there is little evidence of an overall relationship between US training and coup
risk. However, the ubiquity of training suggests the potential for worldwide
political impacts and for the broad diffusion of norms. Whether such norm
transmission has in fact occurred, whether training is effective, how the USA
allocates training to partner military forces, why recipient governments enter
such partnerships, and the implications of the scale and bureaucratic complexity
of training activities for accountability, are important questions for future
research.


THE IMTAD-USA DATASET

The dataset covers US foreign military training from 1999 to 2016, building on
the annual Department of Defense and Department of State Foreign Military
Training Report (FMTR), submitted annually to Congress since 1999, covering
worldwide training with the exception of NATO allies, Japan, Australia and New
Zealand (see e.g. US DOS & DOD, 2019).1 The FMTR provides the most comprehensive
information on US training in terms of costs and the number of trainees
(McNerney et al., 2014: 44). We go well beyond the FMTR data, however, relying
on other government documents and secondary sources to supplement missing
information and reconcile discrepancies. Above all, FMTR only covers the
Afghanistan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) as of 2016, and never covers the Iraq
Security Forces Fund (ISFF), but these are the two largest US training
activities by a significant margin. IMTAD-USA includes data for these programs
from a variety of official documents.


DEFINING MILITARY TRAINING

Different government agencies variously refer to training in terms of military
assistance, security assistance, security cooperation, building partner
capacity, and train-and-equip. For the purposes of the FMTR, and thus for our
dataset, military training is defined as:

formal or informal instruction of foreign students in the United States or
overseas by officers or employees of the United States, contract technicians,
contractors (including instruction at civilian institutions), or by
correspondence courses, technical, educational, or information publications and
media of all kinds, training aids, orientation, and military advice to foreign
military units and forces. (1961 Foreign Assistance Act, Section 644(n), 22 USC.
2403(n))




UNIT OF ANALYSIS, CODING PROCEDURE AND VARIABLES

The most disaggregated unit of analysis in the dataset is the
program-country-year: characteristics of US training programs as they operate in
a given country in a given year. Almost all of the 34 programs in the dataset
operate across multiple countries, and most recipient countries have training
activities operating simultaneously through a variety of programs. This most
disaggregated level includes data on the number of trainees and the expense of
training. Where unclassified, we include binary variables for whether particular
types of forces received training, with indicators for armed forces, police,
others, and ‘counterweight’ forces. For the latter, often used to defend
regimes, we link with De Bruin’s (2021) State Security Forces dataset, which
defines counterweights as armed forces under state control but outside the
regular army, deployed with access to the capital city. Finally, this level
includes a variable for the location of training activities, whether in the
United States, the recipient country, or elsewhere.

At the level of the program we coded binary variables for overall program
objectives including military performance, counterterrorism, counternarcotics,
human rights, gender, civil–military relations, democratization, and good
governance. To gather information on program objectives, we consulted program
descriptions in FMTR, Defense Security Cooperation Agency budget estimates, and
program-specific documents, complemented by secondary sources. A sample coding,
as well as a full list of sources, is available in the Online appendix.

IMTAD-USA’s variables permit us to analyze the mechanisms through which training
influences politics and security. Coding program objectives allows for an
explicit measure of US efforts at military norms transmission, for instance.
Whether training occurs in the United States, the recipient country, or a third
country potentially shapes the avenues available for both norms transmission and
the formation of transnational networks. Finally, the nature of forces trained
can shape civil–military relations – favoring coup-proofing forces for example
(De Bruin, 2021).


LIMITATIONS

The FMTR source data have several limitations. First, the reports do not
systematically identify the use of military contractors. Second, FMTR includes
total budgets and trainees for both classified and unclassified activities, but
excludes additional details on classified activities and omits training by the
Central Intelligence Agency. This creates biases. Considerable US assistance
goes under the radar in order to provide plausible deniability for training the
security forces of unsavory regimes, or to limit escalation in adversarial
relationships (McManus & Yarhi-Milo, 2017). IMTAD-USA may therefore omit
training activities in authoritarian states or in strategically sensitive areas.
Analysts using these data may wish to introduce controls for regime type or for
the type of strategic situation in which the United States has an interest in
limiting escalation. These variables would then have to be interpreted as
reflecting, in part at least, an interest in conducting training overtly or
covertly.

Third, training objectives can vary across countries, which we do not capture
with these data. The training objective data were instead uniformly applied to
each country where a specific program was active for a given year. This
simplification is necessary given the large number of countries where the USA
carries out foreign military training activities. Future work could attempt to
disaggregate country-specific training objectives.


COMPARISON WITH EXISTING DATA

With the exception of classified data, and within the limits of sometimes
contradictory and incomplete reporting, our dataset contains as full coverage as
possible of US training activities. Past work has focused on military training
and security assistance in the contexts of specific countries, such as Somalia
(Williams, 2019), Iraq (Biddle, Macdonald & Baker, 2018), or Colombia (Dube &
Naidu, 2015), or region-specific activities such as the School of the Americas
(Gill, 2004; Scharpf, 2020). While these intensive programs merit close
attention, they do not represent the ongoing, networked nature of much foreign
military training and its truly global reach. Other studies comparing global
training efforts have generally focused on single programs, notably IMET
(Atkinson, 2006; Savage & Caverley, 2017) and officer exchanges (Ruby & Gibler,
2010). US training activities, however, go well beyond these programs. Martinez
Machain (2021) and Omelicheva, Carter & Campbell (2017) cover nearly the full
array of programs using the FMTR, but exclude Afghanistan (ASFF) Iraq (ISFF), by
far the two largest programs, and lack IMTAD’s complementary data.

Another data source is the Security Assistance Monitor (SAM), which researchers
have used to explore military aid (Boutton, 2021).2 Covering training and arms
transfers, SAM’s training component also uses FMTR data. However, unlike
IMTAD-USA, SAM includes neither spending related to training alone, nor
complementary information concerning training objectives, locations and types of
recipients. Similarly, Security Force Monitor uses FMTR, digitizing it to
provide raw, uncoded data about individual trainings, including course names and
specific locations.3 However, unlike IMTAD-USA, it does not include spending and
trainees for many classified training activities or training objectives.

Download
Open in new tab
Download in PowerPoint

Figure 1. Total military training activities. Training expenses (millions of
constant 2012 dollars); number of trainees (individuals).



Training correlates with other forms of US assistance but is significantly
distinct. Comparing IMTAD-USA to USAID (2020) data, but excluding Iraq and
Afghanistan, there is a correlation between training expenditures4 and total
economic aid (0.334) and with total military aid (0.290). The correlation is
stronger with major arms transfers (0.498) according to SIPRI (2020). Moreover,
there is a pronounced difference when examining trainees versus expenditures:
the number of trainees correlates at only 0.246 with economic aid, 0.098 with
military aid, and 0.177 with major arms transfers. Other data fail to capture
the scope of training in terms of the number of military personnel who pass
through it. There is, in other words, a key divergence in the types of security
assistance the USA offers in different places and times.


TRENDS AND PATTERNS IN US TRAINING ACTIVITIES

The data reveal important patterns. The first is the expansion of training
activities over the past two decades (Figure 1). This is most obvious in Iraq
and Afghanistan, but the increase is general. Outside these two countries, there
was a threefold rise from an annual average of $305 million in 1999–2001 (about
half in aid, half in sales) to $672 million in 2014–2016, 40% in aid, 60% in
sales (in constant 2012 dollars). There was, however, a real decline in the
2004–2006 period as training ramped up in Iraq and Afghanistan. Training is also
an increasingly

Download
Open in new tab
Download in PowerPoint

Figure 2. Training expenditures as a percentage of total US military aid
expenditures over time

Source: IMTAD (for training expenditures); USAID, 2020 (for total US military
aid expenditures). Training expenditures exclude the Foreign Military Sales
program, which is paid for by the recipient state.


significant share of US military aid over time (Figure 2), though this is
largely accounted for by Afghanistan alone. Thus, while the focus on Iraq and
Afghanistan is justified, training is a much more general policy.



Second, while the geography of US training has changed, the web of training
relationships is truly global (Figure 3). Almost all countries experienced some
US training since 1999. The exceptions, visible in the maps, are problematic
adversaries such as Myanmar, Cuba and North Korea. Others closely track changes
in bilateral relations; for example, note the decline in training in Russia,
Venezuela or Zimbabwe, or the increase in Libya. Focusing on regional patterns,
the Middle East,

Download
Open in new tab
Download in PowerPoint

Figure 3. Geographic scope of US training activities, by nominal expenses

For legibility, we compare two five-year periods. See Online appendix for
additional maps. Countries whose outlines do not appear at all (NATO, Japan,
Australia, New Zealand) do not appear in the dataset because training is not
reported for these recipients in FMTR after 2001. Countries that could have
training reported but did not (e.g. North Korea) are outlined but have a white
fill. Shapefile source: Weidmann, Kuse & Gleditsch (2010).


Latin America and key allies in East Asia have been constant areas of focus. In
contrast, training in other regions fluctuates, with Africa experiencing large
increases with the war on terror.



A related pattern contrasts expenditures with trainees (Figure 4). The
difference is striking in sub-Saharan Africa, a region with modest US spending
relative to the number of trainees. This suggests a focus on building broad
military capacity in the rank and file, with whole units participating in major
exercises, in contrast with an officer focus for other regions. In other words,
training operates differently from place to place.

These regional trends mask the high degree of concentration of training
activities in certain countries – and notably the yawning gap between
Afghanistan, Iraq, and the rest (Tables I and II). Key US allies in the Middle
East figure prominently in spending. The picture changes, however, when
examining the top recipients by number of trainees. Colombia, with extensive
focus under Plan Colombia, is a third

Download
Open in new tab
Download in PowerPoint

Figure 4. Regional distribution of US training over time, excluding Iraq and
Afghanistan for clarity

Training expenses (millions of constant 2012 dollars); number of trainees
(individuals).



Table I. Top ten recipients in training spending, 1999–2016

Table I. Top ten recipients in training spending, 1999–2016

View larger version

Table II. Top 10 recipients in individuals trained, 1999–2016

Table II. Top 10 recipients in individuals trained, 1999–2016

View larger version
outlier beyond Afghanistan and Iraq. Otherwise, this list mirrors the
discrepancy in Figure 4 between spending inputs and trainee outputs. Finally,
the difference between aid and sales unsurprisingly reflects income to a large
degree.



Ultimately, then, training is both broad and deep: it is something the USA does
both globally and in critical cases of counterinsurgency and state building. The
focus on Iraq and Afghanistan should not obscure the ubiquity of US training
activities, and we should be wary of generalizing findings from these
large-scale missions to the wider web of relationships.

Broad geographic scope is matched by administrative complexity. A recent RAND
report refers to the

Download
Open in new tab
Download in PowerPoint

Figure 5. Spending on training programs, by program objective (excluding ASFF
and ISFF), millions of constant 2012 dollars


‘complex patchwork’ of security cooperation since 2001, identifying over 160
different Congressional statutes authorizing security cooperation between the
USA and its foreign partners (Thaler et al., 2016). A recipient will typically
receive training through multiple programs. This diversity in part reflects a
wide array of objectives for training.



However, this administrative complexity has several ramifications. First, US
personnel often stitch together different sources of funding, with myriad
administrative procedures, reporting requirements, deadlines and objectives.
This makes tracing the full extent of activities difficult. Consequently, the
transparency provided by the FMTR is not as useful as it might otherwise be,
with implications for oversight and accountability. Second, it also makes the
administration of programs less effective, augmenting transaction costs and
continuity problems.

We code each program’s objectives under eight broad headings (accounting for how
programs change objectives over time). On average, each program focuses on
between two and three objectives. Figure 5 shows how objectives have changed
over time, with total funding for programs that include each objective.
Importantly, because programs can have multiple objectives, these figures are
not mutually exclusive, and they do not indicate, within a given program, how
much money was spent on specific objectives (e.g. counterterrorism vs.
governance). Figure 5 also excludes ASFF and ISFF, since these outliers throw
off a general assessment of objectives. Military performance was,
unsurprisingly, the most-funded objective. However, most other objectives
increase in prominence over time, with training becoming more multidimensional.

One caveat follows from this administrative complexity. The ways US officials
navigate this system mean potential gaps between what the program says it does
and what it actually does. For example, as hybrid and cyber warfare increased in
prominence, US officers stretched existing counterterrorism programs to cover
security cooperation in this domain, rather than waiting for formal
Congressional authorization (Thaler et al., 2016: 12–16). This suggests inherent
limitations to IMTAD-USA’s coding of objectives: authorizations in Washington
may not match the practical purposes on the ground.


EMPIRICAL APPLICATION: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON MILITARY TRAINING AND COUPS D’ÉTAT

Underscoring how IMTAD-USA’s more extensive coverage of US training can
significantly alter existing findings, we revisit Savage & Caverley’s (2017)
analysis of the relationship between training and coups. With data on IMET
(1970–2009) and the Counterterrorism Fellowship Program (CTFP) (2002–2009),5 the
authors find that ‘any US FMT [foreign military training] corresponds to a
doubling of the probability of a military-backed coup attempt in the recipient
country’ (Savage & Caverley, 2017: 543). They further speculate that because
IMET focuses on liberal norms of human rights and civilian control, ‘IMET
trainees are therefore the population where we are most likely to see the effect
of norms (i.e. the easy case). If we discover more coups in countries with a
large number of IMET trainees, this relationship will likely be stronger in
less-scrutinized programs with less focus on liberal values’ (2017: 548).
Despite conceding that the focus on IMET is a limitation in their empirical
analysis, they ‘find a robust relationship between US training of foreign
militaries and military-backed coup attempts’, explaining this in terms of the
human capital training vests in the military and the ways this changes the
balance of power between the military and the regime (Savage & Caverley, 2017:
553). Frequent academic and media references to this work also cite it as
indicating that US training provokes coups (e.g. Henke, 2019: 165; Dieng, 2019:
493, Economist, 2019).

By applying IMTAD-USA to this puzzle, we can replicate the findings concerning
IMET and assess whether coup risk generalizes to the full array of programs. We
reanalyze their time-series cross-section logit

Table III. Replication of Savage & Caverley (2017) with IMTAD-USA: US military
training and coups

Table III. Replication of Savage & Caverley (2017) with IMTAD-USA: US military
training and coups

View larger version
models for coup incidence, with the same control variables and statistical
procedures (Table III). It is important to note that the time period is much
shorter in our data since the FMTR reports do not start until 1999, whereas
Savage & Caverley (2017) draw on the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Historical Facts Book, which provides numbers of trainees and expenditures for
IMET for 1970 onward. However, the first three rows of Table III replicate their
finding about the increased coup risks associated with IMET in recipient
countries for this overlapping 1999–2009 time period, using our IMTAD data.6 Any
differences that emerge are not merely a consequence of different timeframes.



Indeed, there are differences. In extending the analysis to encompass the other
non-sales programs outside of ISFF and ASFF as well (rows 4–6), the result
disappears. IMET represents 30% of expenditures and 13% of trainees when also
leaving aside sales of training (and 14% and 11% when including sales). It is
also unrepresentative of the total; the correlation coefficients between IMET
and non-IMET aid programs are, for expenditures, 0.248; for trainees, 0.227 (and
0.090 and 0.222 when including sales).7 IMET is focused on junior and senior
officers, unlike programs training rank-and-file soldiers. But we also find a
null result when examining the Regional Centers for Security Studies (RCSS)
(rows 7–9), a ‘most similar’ comparison. This program, like IMET, focuses on
officers and seeks explicitly to cultivate leaders and develop US military
networks abroad, and should therefore impact civil–military relations via
similar mechanisms. Conversely, it differs from IMET insofar as RCSS focuses on
senior rather than junior officers and conducts seminars and short courses on
broad strategic issues, while IMET supports a much wider variety of activities.
In sum, IMTAD-USA’s comprehensive coverage suggests that while Savage & Caverley
are correct to point to the dangers of IMET, their hypothesis that this effect
is likely to be even stronger in other programs appears unsupported – at least
for those programs for which we have publicly-available data.


DISCUSSION AND AVENUES OF FURTHER RESEARCH

Beyond implications for existing research, IMTAD-USA opens up new lines of
inquiry. First, the scale of the phenomenon suggests a transmission belt for
ideas and capabilities that shape US power and global security. The US military
is the most important agent in diffusing a particular global ‘military culture’
shaping norms and ideas (Farrell, 2005) and technologies of counter-rebellion
(Kalyvas & Balcells, 2010). What are the consequences of transmitting particular
forms of knowledge with specific objectives (Savage & Scharpf, 2020)? Does human
rights training, for example, foster compliance? Similar questions concern
civil–military relations, anticorruption efforts, gender training and other
normative objectives. Relatedly, US security assistance shapes the capabilities
of security forces and state institutions. To what extent and how does US
training boost counterterrorism capabilities (Bapat, 2011), change
counterinsurgency outcomes (Lyall & Wilson, 2009), deter civil war onset
(Cunningham, 2016), or impact post-conflict conditions (Sullivan, Blanken &
Rice, 2020)? Recent case-study work is almost unanimously negative in assessing
the effectiveness of large-scale training missions, past (Ladwig, 2017; Karlin,
2018) and present (Biddle, Macdonald & Baker, 2018; Reno, 2018; Jowell, 2018;
Matisek, 2018). But we know little about the impacts of smaller-scale,
routinized activities outside the context of active insurgency. The dataset can
provide both a macro-level take on these questions and guide case selection for
micro-level analysis. Research could, in particular, apply these data to other
dependent variables, such as repression (Sullivan, Blanken & Rice, 2020) and
instability (Boutton, 2021).

A second avenue of research concerns the ways training manifests security
hierarchy. The global reach of security and economic hierarchies controlled by
the United States is, as Lake observes, ‘the most striking fact about the
pattern of authority in the modern world system’ (2009: 82). Do training
relationships reinforce a US-centric military system? Do they increase US
influence and access to recipient states (Blankenship & Miles Joyce, 2020;
Martinez Machain, 2021)? Do they impact how the USA mobilizes military
coalitions (Henke, 2019)? Training, after all, is a way of creating military
power (Brooks & Stanley, 2007) and signaling support for recipients (McManus &
Yarhi-Milo, 2017). In light of the enormous expense of maintaining US military
presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, training relationships represent an attempt to
outsource hegemony and square commitments with capabilities.

This raises a third set of questions about whether training accomplishes this
objective. Do partners do what the USA wants them to do? Does training help to
contain security challenges at lower expense than direct intervention? And does
it do so with fewer agency problems than other forms of security cooperation,
such as financing and arms transfers (Sullivan, Tessman & Li, 2011)? As
researchers disaggregate forms of external support in civil war (Sawyer,
Cunningham & Reed, 2017; Sullivan & Karreth, 2019), how does knowledge- and
human-centric training compare with material security assistance (e.g. McNerny
et al., 2014)? Training may be subject to similar principal-agent problems as
other forms of security assistance, with recipients using it for their own ends
(Byman, 2006; Ladwig, 2017; Savage & Caverley, 2017; Biddle, Macdonald & Baker,
2018). In addition, as the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan cases illustrate,
training can sometimes express waning US commitment, sending a perverse signal
that the USA cannot be relied upon in the long term.

Fourth, we know little about the foreign military training of other states and
organizations. Despite increased Russian and Chinese activity, we know little
about their training and how it impacts alignments, access and influence. Much
training occurs in multilateral contexts, most notably through NATO in
Afghanistan, with the European Union and African Union also playing important
roles. Divergent providers of training may lead to divergent outcomes, even when
the trainers are allies. Grewal (2019), for example, has found that Tunisian
officers differ in their attitudes about civil–military relations depending on
whether they trained in the United States or in France. The USA frequently works
through private military companies whose role merits further research, as do
regional powers such as Turkey and the Gulf states who are actively training
partners in places like Somalia and Libya.

Fifth, the attractiveness of ‘working by, with, and through’ local partners
suggests that US foreign military training is likely to continue. But why do
some countries rather than others receive training, why does the USA work with
particular units in partner states, and why does training takes particular
forms? How well do past security relationships, common threats, cost
sensitivity, and concerns for democracy and human rights explain who gets
training, in what domains, and how much? Conversely: Why and how do governments
choose to partner with the USA (Scharpf, 2020), or designate particular units to
receive training?

Finally, there are important questions about accountability and democratic
control against the backdrop of a liberal international order under intense
pressure. The deaths of four US Special Forces trainers and five of their
Nigerien counterparts in an ambush in Niger in October 2017, or the Trump
administration’s politicization of security assistance to Ukraine, represent
important controversies. How does training influence democracy and
civil–military relations in the USA? By compiling data on US training and making
it publicly available, we hope to further research into the normative
implications of security assistance.

Replication data
The dataset and Online appendix, including the codebook, can be found at
http://www.prio.no/jpr/datasets/.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sincere thanks to Marianne Bergeron, Ines Butler, Laurie Chartrand, Emmanuel
Méthot-Jean, Raphaël Scarborough, and Ludwine Tchatat. We kindly thank
participants at the Workshop on Foreign Military Training Activities and the
Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society for advice and feedback.

Funding
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada, with a supplement from the Department of National Defence,
Canada (award no. 435-2017-0726).

ORCID iDs
Theodore McLauchlin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3759-2241

Simon Pierre Boulanger Martel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4612-6069


NOTES

1
FMTR includes NATO allies in 1999 and 2000, and Japan, Australia and New Zealand
from 1999 to 2001. For the sake of comparability, we exclude these countries for
the entire period.

2
Available at http://securityassistance.org.

3
Available at https://trainingdata.securityforcemonitor.org.

4
Correlations with aid figures exclude sales of training, to improve
comparability; correlations with arms transfers include them.

5
Savage & Caverley (2017) only analyze CTFP as a robustness check and only when
pooled with IMET, rather than separately. Therefore, we do not analyze its
relationship to coups here.

6
There are differences between the figures for IMET from IMTAD’s source and from
Savage & Caverley’s source; the correlation between the two is 0.926 for
expenditures and 0.798 for the number of students. There is no obvious pattern
to the difference; see the Online appendix for more detail. The results are
substantially the same using their data.

7
All analyses and correlations exclude the Afghanistan and Iraq Security Forces
Funds (ASFF and ISFF, respectively) since these are very large outliers focusing
on just two countries.


REFERENCES

Atkinson, Carol (2006) Constructivist implications of material power: Military
engagement and the socialization of states, 1972–2000. International Studies
Quarterly 50(3): 509–537.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bapat, Navin A (2011) Transnational terrorism, US military aid, and the
incentive to misrepresent. Journal of Peace Research 48(3): 303–318.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biddle, Stephen, Macdonald, Julia, Baker, Ryan (2018) Small footprint, small
payoff: The military effectiveness of security force assistance. Journal of
Strategic Studies 41(1–2): 89–142.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blankenship, Brian, Miles Joyce, Renanah (2020) Purchasing power: US overseas
defense spending and military statecraft. Journal of Conflict Resolution
64(2–3): 545–573.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boutton, Andrew (2021) Military aid, regime vulnerability, and the escalation of
political violence. British Journal of Political Science 51(2): 507–525.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brooks, Risa, Stanley, Elizabeth (2007) Creating Military Power. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Google Scholar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Byman, Daniel (2006) Friends like these: Counterinsurgency and the war on
terrorism. International Security 31(2): 79–115.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cunningham, David (2016) Preventing civil war: How the potential for
international intervention can deter conflict onset. World Politics 68(2):
307–340.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

De Bruin, Erica (2021) Mapping coercive institutions: The state security forces
dataset, 1960–2010. Journal of Peace Research 58(2): 315–325.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dieng, Moda (2019) The multi-national joint task force and the G5 Sahel Joint
Force: The limits of military capacity-building efforts. Contemporary Security
Policy 40(4): 481–501.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dube, Oeindrila, Naidu, Suresh (2015) Bases, bullets, and ballots: The effect of
US military aid on political conflict in Colombia. Journal of Politics 77(1):
249–267.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Economist (2019) Friendly fire: A shooting puts the spotlight on military
training for allies. The Economist 12 December
(https://www.economist.com/united-states/2019/12/12/a-shooting-puts-the-spotlight-on-military-training-for-allies).
Google Scholar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Farrell, Theo (2005) World culture and military power. Security Studies 14(3):
448–488.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gill, Lesley (2004) The School of the Americas: Military Training and Political
Violence in the Americas. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grewal, Sharan (2019) Military defection during localized protests: The case of
Tataouine. International Studies Quarterly 63(2): 259–269.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Henke, Marina E (2019) Constructing Allied Cooperation: Diplomacy, Payments and
Power in Multilateral Military Coalitions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Google Scholar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jowell, Marco (2018) The unintended consequences of foreign military assistance
in Africa: An analysis of peacekeeping training in Kenya. Journal of Eastern
African Studies 12(1): 102–119.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kalyvas, Stathis, Balcells, Laia (2010) International system and technologies of
rebellion: How the end of the Cold War shaped internal conflict. American
Political Science Review 104(3): 415–429.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karlin, Mara (2018) Building Militaries in Fragile States: Challenges for the
United States. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ladwig III, Walter C (2017) The Forgotten Front: Patron–Client Relationships in
Counterinsurgency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lake, David (2009) Hierarchy in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Google Scholar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lyall, Jason, Wilson, Isaiah (2009) Rage against the machines: Explaining
outcomes in counterinsurgency wars. International Organization 63(1): 67–106.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Martinez Machain, Carla (2021) Exporting influence: US military training as soft
power. Journal of Conflict Resolution 65(3): 313–341.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Matisek, Jahara (2018) The crisis of American military assistance: Strategic
dithering and Fabergé Egg armies. Defense & Security Analysis 34(3): 267–290.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McManus, Roseanne, Yarhi-Milo, Keren (2017) The logic of “offstage” signaling:
Domestic politics, regime type, and major power-protégé relations. International
Organization 71(4): 701–733.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

McNerney, Michael, O’Mahony, Angela, Szayna, Thomas S, Eaton, Derek, Baxter,
Caroline, Clarke, Colin P, Cutrufello, Emma, McGee, Michael, Peterson, Heather,
Payne, Leslie Adrienne, Trenkov-Wermuth, Calin (2014) Assessing Security
Cooperation as a Preventive Tool. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Google Scholar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Omelicheva, Mariya, Carter, Brittnee, Campbell, Luke B (2017) Military aid and
human rights: Assessing the impact of US security assistance programs. Political
Science Quarterly 132(1): 119–145.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reno, William (2018) The politics of security assistance in the horn of Africa.
Defence Studies 18(4): 498–513.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby, Tomislav Z, Gibler, Douglas (2010) US professional military education and
democratization abroad. European Journal of International Relations 16(3):
339–364.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savage, Jesse Dillon, Caverley, Jonathan D (2017) When human capital threatens
the Capitol: Foreign aid in the form of military training and coups. Journal of
Peace Research 54(4): 542–557.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Savage, Jesse Dillon, Scharpf, Adam (2020) Security assistance and political
militarization. Working paper, Trinity College Dublin.
Google Scholar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sawyer, Katherine, Cunningham, Kathleen Gallagher, Reed, William (2017) The role
of external support in civil war termination. Journal of Conflict Resolution
61(6): 1174–1202.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scharpf, Adam (2020) Why governments have their troops trained abroad: Evidence
from Latin America. International Studies Quarterly 64(3): 734–747.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SIPRI – Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (2020) SIPRI arms
transfers database (https://www.sipri.org/databases/armstransfers).
Google Scholar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sullivan, Patricia, Karreth, Johannes (2019) Strategies and tactics in armed
conflict: How governments and foreign interveners respond to insurgent threats.
Journal of Conflict Resolution 63(9): 2207–2232.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sullivan, Patricia, Blanken, Leo, Rice, Ian (2020) Arming the peace: Foreign
security assistance and human rights conditions in post-conflict countries.
Defence and Peace Economics 31(2): 177–200.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sullivan, Patricia L, Tessman, Brock F, Li, Xiaojun (2011) US military aid and
recipient state cooperation. Foreign Policy Analysis 7(3): 275–294.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Talmadge, Caitlin (2015) The Dictator’s Army: Battlefield Effectiveness in
Authoritarian Regimes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thaler, David, McNerney, Michael J, Grill, Beth, Marquis, Jefferson P, Kadlec,
Amanda (2016) From Patchwork to Framework: A Review of Title 10 Authorities for
Security Cooperation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Google Scholar | Crossref

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

USAID – United States Agency for International Development (2020) Foreign aid
explorer (https://explorer.usaid.gov/data).
Google Scholar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

US DOS & DOD – United States Department of Defense & Department of State (2019)
Foreign military training report, fiscal years 2018 and 2019
(https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/FMT_Volume-I_FY2018_2019.pdf).
Google Scholar

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weidmann, Nils B, Kuse, Doreen, Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede (2010) The geography
of the international system: The CShapes dataset. International Interactions
36(1): 86–106.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Williams, Paul (2019) Fighting for Peace in Somalia: A History and Analysis of
the African Union Mission (AMISOM), 2007–2017. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar



THEODORE McLAUCHLIN, b. 1983, PhD in Political Science (McGill University,
Montréal, 2013); Associate Professor at the Université de Montréal (2013– );
research focuses on civil war and military affairs. Most recent book: Desertion
(Cornell, 2020).

LEE JM SEYMOUR, b. 1977, PhD in Political Science (Northwestern University,
Evanston, 2008); Associate Professor at the Université de Montréal (2015– );
research focuses on civil war and political violence.

SIMON PIERRE BOULANGER MARTEL, b. 1989, MSS in Peace and Conflict Studies
(Uppsala University, 2014); PhD Candidate in Political Science at the Université
de Montréal (2019– ); research focuses on civil war and armed groups.


View Abstract

ARTICLE AVAILABLE IN:

Vol 59, Issue 2, 2022



RELATED ARTICLES

Similar Articles:

SIMILAR ARTICLES:

View all >

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When human capital threatens the Capitol: Foreign aid in the form of military
training and coups
Jesse Dillon Savage and more...
Journal of Peace Research
Jul 2017
Show details Hide details

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Interests and US Foreign Aid: The Carter and Reagan Years
James H. Lebovic
Journal of Peace Research
Jun 1988
Show details Hide details

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military Dependency: Thailand and the Philippines
Bjorn Hagelin
Journal of Peace Research
Dec 1988
Show details Hide details

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

full-text

ARTICLES CITING THIS ONE: 0


full-text


articlebookdataexternal-linkinfo-round
SAGE Recommends
Close
Sort byRelevanceDate
What is this? 
Scroll to top
 * Fetching related content...

Scroll to bottom




ALSO FROM SAGE PUBLISHING

 * CQ Press Library American political resources opens in new tab
 * Data Planet A universe of data opens in new tab
 * Lean Library Increase the visibility of your library opens in new tab
 * SAGE Business Cases Real-world cases at your fingertips opens in new tab
 * SAGE Campus Online skills and methods courses opens in new tab
 * SAGE Knowledge The ultimate social science library opens in new tab
 * SAGE Research Methods The ultimate methods library opens in new tab
 * SAGE Video Streaming video collections opens in new tab


SAGE JOURNALS

About
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Contact Us
Help
Historical Content
Accessibility



BROWSE

Health Sciences
Life Sciences
Materials Science & Engineering
Social Sciences & Humanities
Journals A-Z
Discipline Hubs



RESOURCES

Authors
Editors
Reviewers
Librarians
Researchers
Societies



OPPORTUNITIES

Advertising
Reprints
Content Sponsorships
Permissions
Microsites
Advertising Disclaimer



JOURNAL OF PEACE RESEARCH

ISSN: 0022-3433
Online ISSN: 1460-3578

Copyright © 2022 by Peace Research Institute Oslo




Top