BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Indoctrination, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 46.6% saturation with 95 hits. Analysis detected 767 faulty-reasoning hits from 204 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.3% and a BS Rank of 85% (2,983 of 18,848 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.20% of the article peer group.
Over the past two decades, U.S. security assistance has dramatically increased, with mixed results.
The United States’ failure to build effective partner security forces in places like Afghanistan and Mali has raised questions about the efficacy of U.S. security assistance approaches.
Yet, when done right, security assistance to key partners can allow the United States to advance central national security goals, as recently seen in Ukraine.
Within a rapidly changing strategic context, what is the future of security assistance?
How can the United States reform its security assistance approaches to increase its return on investment, especially in theaters described as lower priority by the Trump administration like Africa?
On July 20, join the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy, and Technology at Brookings for a discussion on this topic with Rep.
Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa.
Brookings experts Dafna H.
Rand, the former director of foreign assistance at the Department of State, and Alexander Noyes, the coauthor of “War at Arm’s Length: How America Can Build Effective Partners Through Military Assistance,” will moderate this event.
Viewers can submit questions via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1d786b7873696e5d7f6f72727674737a6e33787968">[email protected]</a> or via Twitter at <strong>#SecurityAssistanceReform</strong>.
Analysis
Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.