This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
The 6th SFAB, Army National Guard, has been designated as the 54th SFAB.
Should we continue to list it as the 6th SFAB or the 54th in the article? We can confuse people either way. Subordinate units are being designated as part of the 54th Security Force Assistance Regiment as per references.
Mikeofv (
talk)
00:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes and no. MAAGs were groups of officers permanently sent to a specific foreign country (with the odd NCO, yes). They trickle-posted in and out. SFABs are permanent, standing, formations, with a much higher NCO count, that will be much much more like standard infantry/armoured brigades. They will deploy and go home in chunks, all officers and NCOs together. MAAGs usually dealt with much higher-level details - often weapons sales and associated training - in Army Chiefs' of Staff offices and MODs. SFABs are designed much more to assist army and or other service units.
Buckshot06(talk)14:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
That helps clarify for me the 2018 Army Strategy Line of Effort #4[1] about Alliances and Partnerships. There definitely is another Security Assistance Command, different from SFAC.[2] This shows that coordination between the various forms of assistance stems from other sources[3] than only military power projection. --
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Security assistance definitely is a governmental function. The form of assistance lies on a spectrum. What the Army can supply versus what could get done. For example, on the NATO exercises in Poland this past year, some countries required assistance because their troops are not trained for cold weather. So they trained jointly on how to master cold weather.[1] Perhaps a link to a Security assistance section in an article on international cooperation? The US Army uses the term 'strategic competitor' and encourages international exchanges among the regions. --
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)10:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
From my research, I would encourage a focus here on the military security force assistance in accordance with the definition - 'Unified action by the joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational community to generate, employ, sustain and assist host nation or regional security forces in support of a legitimate authority. SFA is a broad framework that spans the spectrum of conflict focused on assisting foreign security forces in support of US and Coalition interests regardless of operating environment.' (
[1]). Security cooperation and security assistance deal with much more national-level rather than troop-level things. (signed) Buckshot06
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the
project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
The 6th SFAB, Army National Guard, has been designated as the 54th SFAB.
Should we continue to list it as the 6th SFAB or the 54th in the article? We can confuse people either way. Subordinate units are being designated as part of the 54th Security Force Assistance Regiment as per references.
Mikeofv (
talk)
00:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)reply
Yes and no. MAAGs were groups of officers permanently sent to a specific foreign country (with the odd NCO, yes). They trickle-posted in and out. SFABs are permanent, standing, formations, with a much higher NCO count, that will be much much more like standard infantry/armoured brigades. They will deploy and go home in chunks, all officers and NCOs together. MAAGs usually dealt with much higher-level details - often weapons sales and associated training - in Army Chiefs' of Staff offices and MODs. SFABs are designed much more to assist army and or other service units.
Buckshot06(talk)14:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
That helps clarify for me the 2018 Army Strategy Line of Effort #4[1] about Alliances and Partnerships. There definitely is another Security Assistance Command, different from SFAC.[2] This shows that coordination between the various forms of assistance stems from other sources[3] than only military power projection. --
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)15:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Security assistance definitely is a governmental function. The form of assistance lies on a spectrum. What the Army can supply versus what could get done. For example, on the NATO exercises in Poland this past year, some countries required assistance because their troops are not trained for cold weather. So they trained jointly on how to master cold weather.[1] Perhaps a link to a Security assistance section in an article on international cooperation? The US Army uses the term 'strategic competitor' and encourages international exchanges among the regions. --
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)10:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
From my research, I would encourage a focus here on the military security force assistance in accordance with the definition - 'Unified action by the joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational community to generate, employ, sustain and assist host nation or regional security forces in support of a legitimate authority. SFA is a broad framework that spans the spectrum of conflict focused on assisting foreign security forces in support of US and Coalition interests regardless of operating environment.' (
[1]). Security cooperation and security assistance deal with much more national-level rather than troop-level things. (signed) Buckshot06