Note: The views expressed in this article are those solely of those interviewed and authors and do not reflect the policy or views of the Institute for Security Governance, Defense Security Cooperation University, Defense Security Cooperation Agency or Department of Defense. 

In October 2024, the Defense Security Cooperation University’s Institute for Security Governance (ISG) celebrated its 30^th anniversary. Over the past three decades, the Institute, its predecessor organizations, and its team of dedicated experts, have shaped and advanced the mission of Security Cooperation through determination, innovation, and dedication. This article charts the course of U.S. defense and security assistance to allies and partners from the post-Cold War era until today through the lens of this incredibly nimble organization. It describes how experience and lessons learned have impacted – and been impacted by – global geopolitical changes, discrete funding authorities, and evolving legislation. And finally, it highlights the Institute’s activities today and its future trajectory. 

An Origin Story 

On September 1, 1971, the Department of Defense (DoD) established the Defense Security Assistance Agency (DSAA) to direct, administer, and supervise Title 22 Security Assistance programs for the transfer of defense articles and services to other countries. International Military Education and Training (IMET) and Foreign Military Sales (FMS) were two of DSAA's original programs and remain integral programs to this day.   

Two decades after DSAA’s founding, as the geopolitical landscape dramatically changed with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new democratic states, the organization intensified its efforts to revitalize its programs. DSAA – renamed the Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) in 1998 – aligned with Congressional mandates to expand IMET's role in promoting regional stability and defense capabilities through professional military and technical courses and specialized instruction. As part of this effort, DSAA worked closely with a group of Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) faculty and staff in Monterey, California to develop an expanded-IMET (or E-IMET) program, aligning with Congress’ desire to promote effective defense resource management, to improve military justice systems in accordance with human rights, and to promote the principles of civilian control of the military in allied and friendly partner nations. NPS National Security Affairs Professors Donald Abenheim, Thomas Bruneau, and Paul Stockton, established the NPS Program on Civil-Military Relations in 1991.  

In September 1994, the Program on Civil-Military Relations relaunched as the Center for Civil-Military Relations (CCMR) and became a DSCA international schoolhouse led by the Naval Postgraduate School. With offices in Herrmann Hall on the NPS campus, a staff of three, and Dr. Paul Stockton as Director, CCMR set out “to provide a broad range of innovative graduate level educational programs and research to foreign military officers, legislators, and civilian officials.”ⁱ Dr. Stockton, CCMR’s inaugural Director, was known for “creating relevant and innovative programs before requirements [were] fully articulated,” and helped lay the groundwork for the Center’s important contributions.ⁱⁱ Prior to the expansion of IMET, many programs focused on partner education, but it was only with the introduction of E-IMET that civilians and the military would have the opportunity to work on these issues in a shared – and neutral – classroom environment. In essence, CCMR programs aimed to prepare and enable participants to “recast civil-military relations along democratic lines”ⁱⁱⁱ in their home countries. Two years into the Center’s founding, Mr. Richard Hoffman became Executive Director to round out the founding group. Mr. Hoffman, who later became CCMR’s Director and served in that position until 2018, played a pivotal role in shaping the Center and its evolving mandate. 

Meeting a New Mandate 

CCMR’s core faculty were well equipped to meet the distinctive requirements of the E-IMET mandate. Leveraging their diverse networks of multinational experts – to include academics, retired high-ranking military officers, and civilian experts from allied and partner governments and agencies – CCMR designed and taught courses that brought civilian and military personnel together. Students studied myriad civil-military challenges, shaping them into force multipliers in their home countries. Faculty taught these in-depth seminars and courses both in residence at NPS and in Mobile Education Training (MET) formats. In addition to readings and lectures, the offerings had a strong problem-solving focus and included decision-making simulations, case studies, small group discussions, working groups, and follow-on classes.  

 Given their depth of experience and expertise, faculty, staff, and engagement team members – often serving as temporary faculty – heavily invested in designing and implementing courses that they tailored to the requirements and circumstances of each participating country. As stated by Dr. Bruneau, “each…[had] seen the impact that success – or failure – in these critical areas can have on a newly consolidated democracy.”^iv CCMR’s early engagements included a MET seminar on Military Law in Malawi as well as seminars on the Civil-Military Relations of NATO Enlargement held at CCMR headquarters, NATO, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Romania, and Austria, among others.  

 CCMR faculty and staff witnessed in real time the strengths and challenges of civil-military institution building – what would soon come to be known as Defense Institution Building (DIB) – with each MET and Resident course they taught. “We would learn something in Argentina that was applicable and worth including in a course we were doing in Nepal…” remarked Dr. Bruneau.^v CCMR’s research contributions to the lexicon and concept of Defense Institution Building were amplified by active engagement with the issues and partners on the ground. Through participation in forums and panels, and the publication of articles and books, CCMR went beyond practical education and professional development, contributing significantly to growing both the Security Cooperation community of practice as well as the community of interest. 

Innovating Programs to Meet Emerging Needs 

The nature of its work around the world required the Center’s faculty and staff to be in constant conversation with partner countries and federal policymakers, along with a range of sponsors such as the U.S. Department of State (DoS), the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy, DSCA, the Joint Staff, and U.S. Geographic Combatant Commands (GCCs). These conversations, along with hard-won insights from the field, allowed CCMR to not only anticipate emerging needs and policies, but also to expedite curated programs and subject matter experts to meet them.  

In 1997, the International Defense Acquisition Resource Management (IDARM) program was created within the NPS to strengthen democratic relationships and international Security Cooperation through acquisition education, research, and professional service. Given its similar partner focus, IDARM later merged into CCMR, becoming a core and enduring component of the Center. In 1998, when the DoS established the Enhanced International Peacekeeping Capabilities program, CCMR experts provided classroom support and train-the-trainer instruction for partner country militaries across the globe. Then in 2004 following the G8 Sea Island Summit, where the G8 Action Plan for Expanding Global Capability for Peace Support Operations was adopted, CCMR played a leading role in the U.S. effort to implement the training component of the Global Peace Operations Initiative (GPOI).^vi GPOI aimed to enhance sustainable and local peacekeeping training and increase the quantity and quality of UN troop contributions. Similarly, when the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) established the Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program in 2001, CCMR designed, developed, and began its implementation within the year.^vii CCMR also established the Center for Stabilization & Reconstruction Studies in 2004 to support U.S. policy initiatives for Iraq’s reconstruction.^viii Through these emergent programs, CCMR proved to be an agile organization responsive to the needs of domestic and global security initiatives. It was during this 2000-2004 period that Dr. Thomas Bruneau took over as CCMR Director. 

Between 2004 to 2018, Mr. Richard Hoffman transitioned roles, serving as the Center’s Director and steering CCMR through a period of significant growth. By 2006, CCMR developed programs and courses to support a broad range of civil-military and institutional capability development efforts across the globe, to include reforms in several African countries; restructuring of the defense ministry in Colombia; strategy formulation procedures in Moldova and Estonia; staffing a ministry of defense with civilians in Guatemala; and intelligence sector reform in Argentina and Romania.^ix Each engagement and program surfaced fundamental lessons that evolved into best practices, informing CCMR’s subsequent capacity- and capability-building programs. As long-time CCMR faculty member, Practice & Capability Senior Principal, and current Acting Deputy Director Matthew Vaccaro explained: 

It is not a straight line – these programs are key to building truly effective and responsive defense institutions, but the relationships are just as crucial. Building a lasting strategic partnership to drive institutional change takes a long time and a lot of patience. Those lessons-learned we all come back with are what make the collaboration and build-out of successive engagements and programs more effective.^x  

During this period, CCMR pioneered what would become the hallmark of its effective approach to institution building: strategically aligned, problem-focused, and partner-centric engagement. 

Taking on the Defense Institution Building Mission 

The end of the Cold War marked a turning point for U.S. Security Assistance. Time and experience led to the recognition of the need to move beyond providing partners and allies with military training and military materiel as the only means to deter shared foes. Practitioners and policymakers identified the need to improve the governance of partner defense and security institutions as being part and parcel of those shared security goals. This shift was driven by a series of international events and legislative changes, culminating in the understanding that effective Security Cooperation requires robust institution building. 

During a pivotal NATO Summit in Istanbul in June 2004, member states of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council recognized that “effective and efficient state defence institutions under civilian and democratic control are fundamental to stability in the Euro-Atlantic area and essential for international security co-operation.”^xi The fruit of this recognition was the 2004 establishment of the Partnership Action Plan on Defense Institution Building for countries desiring to accede to NATO as well as for NATO Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries “to initiate and carry forward reform and restructuring of defence institutions.”^xii  

In 2006, the DoD established the Defense Institution Building (DIB) program as a key focus of the Warsaw Initiative Fund (WIF). Established in 1994, and later renamed the Wales Initiative Fund, WIF was intended to help PfP countries develop more professional and transparent defense establishments. Areas of focus included assisting with strategic defense reviews and developing defense planning, budgeting, and resource management systems, among other activities^xiii. CCMR had been one of the core supporters of IMET programming on civilian control and defense management topics, so when DoD – through the OSD – sought to formalize and prioritize the DIB mission, it was natural they would turn to CCMR to oversee its management. CCMR integrated the WIF-DIB program soon after in 2006.^xiv 

CCMR accomplished its DIB work with NATO PfP countries through WIF. Once it became clear that the DIB work being done in post-communist transition countries was valuable and applicable elsewhere, CCMR established new programs. Additionally, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, transformed the global security context in which the United States was operating, creating a need to expand the ways in which the United States was cooperating with allies and partners beyond the European context. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates remarked in January 2009 on “the importance of building capacity in allied foreign governments and their security forces to prevent festering problems in weak states from ballooning into crises requiring U.S. military intervention.”^xv As a result, the Defense Institution Reform Initiative (DIRI) was established at NPS in 2009 as a DSCA program. Directed by OSD-Policy, DIRI engaged in bilateral capacity building programs to develop accountable, effective, efficient, and transparent defense institutions that enhanced governance and enabled defense capabilities.^xvi  

Different from CCMR’s Title 22 education-focused mission that dominated its early years, these DIB activities related to the Title 10 “Train and Equip” funding authority and focused more on advising partners and allies in what became known as the DIB Pillars: Strategy, Policy, and Planning; Logistics; Human Resource Management; and Resource Management. Within a few years after being established, DIRI conducted hundreds of strategic advising programs with over a dozen partner nations around the globe. By 2015, CCMR established the Defense Governance and Management Team (DGMT) to develop, implement, and manage DIB programs, including the formerly mentioned WIF-DIB program and DIRI.^xvii Two decades on, the Center had grown both in size and in mandate, expanding its education, professional development, and advising offerings along with its cadre of experts who designed and implemented them. 

Supporting Security Cooperation Reform 

With the expansion of DIB efforts around the globe, and the lessons learned that came with it, the U.S. defense architecture around DIB began to change. In 2016, the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) broadened and codified DIB into law. The 2017 NDAA introduced the term “Institutional Capacity Building” (ICB) for the first time.^xviii From a definition standpoint, ICB encompasses Security Cooperation activities that directly support partner nation efforts to improve security sector governance and core management competencies needed to achieve shared security objectives effectively and responsibly.^xix The NDAA also called for a range of reforms to the DoD Security Cooperation programs. For example, the NDAA required that planners assess partner will and institutional capacity prior to making decisions about training and equipment and put in strict requirements related to assessing, monitoring, and evaluating Security Cooperation programs. 

As a recognized DIB implementing component within DoD, by 2018 CCMR emerged as “a hub...dedicated to thinking through how to do DIB in a more coordinated and targeted manner, and to the gathering and dissemination of lessons and knowledge to improve DIB outcomes.”^xx The new legislation incorporated this knowledge and experience, which further evolved the Center itself and how it would continue to operate. This pivotal landscape change also came with a change in leadership at the Center. With Mr. Hoffman’s sudden passing in 2018, Mr. Steven Peterson, who had been a trusted DGMT leader at the Center under Mr. Hoffman’s leadership, became the CCMR Director. 

Soon after in 2019, CCMR transformed again. It separated from NPS and integrated into DSCA, rebranding as the Institute for Security Governance (ISG) and taking on the mantle as the “Department of Defense’s leading implementer for Institutional Capacity Building and one of its primary international schoolhouses.”^xxi DSCA charged ISG with building partner institutional capacity and capability through tailored advising, education, and professional development programs grounded in American values and approaches.^xxii Mr. Peterson served as ISG’s inaugural director and helped ISG navigate the transition from DIB to ICB, both in terms of advising, education, and professional development activities as well as through the Institute’s contribution to building an ICB community of practice and a community of interest. A growing number of faculty, staff, and regional advisors, who brought their diverse and impressive expertise to the complexities of building partner capacity to meet shared security goals, supported the implementation of these efforts. 

As legislation further refined the requirements of conducting effective ICB, so too did DSCA to the institutional structure that supported it. In 2019, DSCA established the Defense Security Cooperation University (DSCU) to deliver education, training, research, and analysis to the U.S. Security Cooperation Workforce as well as bring ICB to U.S. allies and partners to meet the current and future global Security Cooperation mission.^xxiii Accordingly, in 2021, ISG, the Defense Institute of International Legal Studies (DIILS), and other international training and education programs were brought under its umbrella, thus broadening the scope of DSCU to include program implementation.  DSCU was legislatively directed to assume responsibility for the management and provision of the Department’s ICB activities in updates to Title 10 U.S.C. Section 384 as part of the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2024. 

These necessary reorganizations led to movement among the cadres as well. Mr. Peterson served as ISG’s Director through 2022, when he transitioned to leading the University’s ICB Directorate. Mr. David Manero stepped up from his post as Regional Advising Senior Principal and took over as Acting Director until his departure in September 2023.  

Since becoming ISG, the Institute continues to actively engage in strengthening the institutional capacity of partners and allies’ security sectors to advance U.S. national policy interests and address shared security challenges. As Mr. Peterson noted, 

What we now call Institutional Capacity Building is more relevant than ever as a component of strategic competition. Allies and partners are at the center of our national security strategy; and the tailored ICB programs that strengthen allied and partner nation capacity and capability to govern, manage, and operate defense capabilities in support of shared interests are a critical component of U.S. Security Cooperation.^xxiv  

Today, ISG’s Regional Advising program provides advisory support through Title 10 USC Section 332b – and through DSCA Security Cooperation cases. Its Resident and Mobile Education programs primarily implement through Title 22 authorized programs (International Military Education and Training, Foreign Military Sales, Peacekeeping Operations) and various Title 10 authorized programs such as Maritime Security Initiative (MSI) and Regional Defense Fellowship Program (RDFP). Notably, between FY2018 and FY2024, ISG successfully conducted approximately 2600 Non-Resident ICB Advising activities, 130 Resident courses, 500 Mobile Education Training courses, 70 U.S. Bilateral and Multi-lateral Exercise Support activities, and trained between 2,500-7,500 international military students annually. 

ISG Looks Ahead 

Currently, ISG is skillfully led by Mr. Ian Wexler. Since joining ISG as its Director in September 2023, Mr. Wexler has overseen significant strides in the organization's strategic direction and operational efficiency. The ISG of 2024 is comprised of a dedicated team of over 100 government personnel, augmented by a contract support team, a robust group of adjunct faculty, and a team of subject matter experts. Together, they are advancing a legacy of innovation in Security Cooperation, fostering continuous learning, and strengthening partnerships. 

Active in over 80 countries, ISG supports tailored advising, education, and professional development engagements around the world that tackle complex issues. In the context of its regional advising work, ISG focuses on Strategy, Policy, & Planning; Human Resource Management; Financial Management; Logistics; Cyber Capability; Intelligence; and Professional Military Education. In the context of its education and professional development work, ISG focuses on Security Governance & Civil Military Relations; Conflict, Terrorism, and Protection; Maritime Security; Emergency Management & Resilience; Peacekeeping & Exercises; Cyber Capability; International Defense Acquisition Resource Management; Logistics Capability Building; Women, Peace, and Security; Climate Security, and Civilian Harm Mitigation. 

ISG’s dedicated faculty and staff skillfully and effectively carry out the Institute’s work as DoD’s leading ICB implementer, leveraging its diverse implementation modes to fulfill its Congressional mandate and to shape a more secure future with partners and allies. 

Looking ahead, Director Wexler set an ambitious agenda, noting that “ISG has grown remarkably into a pivotal force within the Department of Defense,” and reaffirming the Institute’s commitment “to excellence and innovation in all aspects of Security Cooperation and to working with our foreign partners toward mutual security objectives over the long term.”^xxv 

Visit ISG’s LinkedIn profile over the coming months as ISG presents highlights and achievements from over the past 30 years.

 

_________________________________________ 

ⁱ Defense Security Assistance Agency, Memorandum of Agreement Between the Defense Security Assistance Agency and the Naval Postgraduate School, document identification number unavailable (Monterey, CA: NPS Department of National Security Affairs, 1994), 2. 

ⁱⁱ “Paul Stockton Confirmed by U.S. Senate as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and America’s Security Affairs,” Center for Homeland Defense and Security, May 18, 2009, https://www.chds.us/c/paul-stockton-confirmed-by-u-s-senate-as-the-assistant-secretary-of-defense-for-homeland-defense-and-americas-security-affairs/, accessed September 27, 2024. 

ⁱⁱⁱ Memorandum of Agreement Between the Defense Security Assistance Agency and the Naval Postgraduate School (1994), 2.  

^iv Thomas C. Bruneau and Scott D. Tollefson, eds., Who Guards the Guardians and How: Democratic Civil-Military Relations (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2006), 9. 

^v Thomas Bruneau, interview by Belynda Talbert, Monterey, CA, August 23, 2024. 

^vi United States Department of State, “Key Topics – Office of Global Programs and Initiatives,” https://www.state.gov/key-topics-office-of-global-programs-and-initiatives/, accessed September 27, 2024. 

^vii Regional Defense Combating Terrorism Fellowship Program, Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 2011, 7, https://open.defense.gov/portals/23/Documents/foreignasst/FY15_Regional_Defense_Combating_Terrorism_Fellowship_Program_Report_to_Congress.pdf. 

^viii Kellie Arakawa, “CSRS Offers Unique Educational Programs for Disaster Relief, Peacekeeping Practitioners,” Navy Newsstand, September 7, 2008, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2008/09/mil-080907-nns02.htm, accessed September 27, 2024. 

^ix Who Guards the Guardians and How: Democratic Civil-Military Relations, 9. 

^x J. Matthew Vaccaro, interview by Belynda Talbert, MS Teams, August 22, 2024. 

^xi “Defence Institution Building,” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, May 9, 2018, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50083.htm, accessed September 27, 2024. 

^xii “Partnership Action Plan on Defence Institution Building (PAP-DIB),” North Atlantic Treaty Organization, June 7, 2004, https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_21014.htm, accessed September 27, 2024. 

^xiii Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimate, 5, accessed September 20, 2024, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/budget_justification/pdfs/01_Operation_and_Maintenance/O_M_VOL_1_PART_1/DSCA_OP-5.pdf. 

^xiv Jeanne Giraldo, (Founding Program Manager, DIRI), interview and email discussion with Belynda Talbert, Monterey, CA, August 30 and September 9-10, 2024. 

^xv Robert M. Gates, “A Balanced Strategy: Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age.” Foreign Affairs 88, No. 1 (January/February 2009). 

^xvi Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 Budget Estimate, 5, accessed September 20, 2024, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2021/budget_justification/pdfs/01_Operation_and_Maintenance/O_M_VOL_1_PART_1/DSCA_OP-5.pdf. 

^xvii Alexandra Kerr, “Defense Institution Building in the U.S. Context,” Connections: The Quarterly Journal 17, no. 3 (2018): 28, https://connections-qj.org/article/defense-institution-building-us-context, accessed September 27, 2024. 

^xviii National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328, 114th Cong., 2nd sess. (December 23, 2016), https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ328/PLAW-114publ328.pdf. 

^xix “What is ICB,” Institute for Security Governance, https://dscu.edu/isg/what-is-icb, accessed September 27, 2024. 

^xx Kerr, “Defense Institution Building in the U.S. Context,” 28. 

^xxi “Welcome to the Institute for Security Governance,” Institute for Security Governance, https://dscu.edu/isg, accessed September 27, 2024. 

^xxii “About ISG,” Institute for Security Governance, https://dscu.edu/isg/about-the-institute, accessed September 27, 2024. 

^xxiii “About DSCU,” Defense Security Cooperation University, https://dscu.edu/about, accessed September 27, 2024. 

^xxiv Steven Peterson, email discussion with Belynda Talbert, September 18, 2024. 

^xxv “Director’s Spotlight: A Year in Review,” Institute for Security Governance, October 22, 2024.