Revamping U.S. Military Assistance: A Four-Tier Model for a New Strategic Era

Abstract

This article examines the impact of U.S. foreign military assistance on influencing the alignment of foreign and national security policies and proposes changes to increase the impact of this type of assistance in directions favorable for the United States. Phrased differently, leveraging provided aid in order to receive the desired return of investment.

---

Introduction

In the eighty years that have passed since the conclusion of the Second World War, the United States has been the world’s largest provider of foreign assistance, delivering an estimated $6.5 trillion across all major categories of foreign aid—humanitarian, developmental, economic, and military. Military aid alone totals over $1.1 trillion. Begun with strategic calculations that sought to prevent another global catastrophe by stabilizing allies and former enemies, deterring adversaries and indirectly extending U.S. power, current funds allocation now seem to be allocated based on habit, with funding streams continuing regardless of how the recipient’s foreign policy behavior aligns with U.S. interests. The current structure is a fragmented, program-driven system that allocates military assistance based on legacy relationships, regional stovepipes, and political inertia. Washington rewards legacy ties, not performance. This article argues that today’s geopolitical environment requires sharper instruments; a system that requires strategic alignment, that asks hard questions like; where does our money generate the most strategic return on investment?

Strategic competition with China and Russia, the diffusion of military technology, rising middle powers, and expanding regional conflicts demand a more conditional, tailored, and data-driven approach to U.S. military assistance. Simply put, the United States can no longer continue distributing military assistance in accordance with a 20th-century attitudes while operating in a 21st-century threat environment. Modern threats such as China and Russia, middle powers—Iran and North Korea—, transnational terrorist and criminal organizations, and a huge national debt, all require the adoption of a system of assistance that will allow the United States to concentrate scarce resources where alignment maximizes returns on investment. aligning assistance with Homeland and hemispheric security as well as institutionalize burden sharing and self-reliance.

Stagnant Assistance, Shifting Alignments

The current military assistance system is characterized by structural inertia. Despite major geopolitical shifts, grants such as Foreign Military Financing (FMF) allocations have remained largely stable for decades. Partners with weakening alignment continue to receive billions; others who present significant opportunities for influence receive pennies on the dollar. For example, one of the United States’ most significant major non-NATO allies (MNNA), Egypt, has received more than $85-95 billion in foreign assistance. Within this allocation, more than $50 billion were grants designated for the purchase military equipment, training, and service. However, longstanding U.S. assistance did not translate into political influence in critical times. When President Biden sought Egyptian cooperation with Palestinian refugees fleeing the war in Gaza, the Egyptian government refused, citing national security concerns. Because Egypt refused to open its borders and accept refugees, the U.S. was forced to pivot its regional policy from diplomatic efforts to prioritizing aid delivery.

Another example of the failings of the current modality of military aid distribution was the tens of billions spent in the twenty years between the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Resolute Support Missions building the Afghan National Army (ANA). Despite two decades of sustained investment, the ANA, a force just under 300,000, fled advancing elements of an insurgency that numbered in the tens of thousands. Ultimately, the 2021 collapse of the Western-supported order in Kabul signaled a weakening of U.S. focused alignment and support for democratic influence,  resulting in the empowerment adversaries, the degradation of U.S. and regional national security, and the creation of new safe havens for radical extremist organizations.

Contrast these efforts with the minimal support the United States provides to India. While officially designated as a key ally and Great Power Competition (GPC) partner, essential to U.S. strategies against Russia and China, India’s share of military financing has been surprisingly small, failing to reach $100 million in the , India received minimal U.S. funding , even as it held  high strategic priority and was recognized as a key great power competition partner. Historically, the U.S. offered India minimal military assistance due to New Delhi’s commitment to non-alignment and its refusal to host U.S. bases. This lack of funding reflects the historical approach to the allocation of aid, not importance. This creates a fiscal-strategic mismatch if measured purely by funds allocation. By any military aid metric, this is a misalignment; forcing the United States to seek alternate methods to secure alignment that include technology release, interoperability agreements, defense industrial co-development, training exercises and intelligence sharing. A targeted FMF package focused on Himalayan and Indian Ocean deterrence integration designed specifically to deter China would not look like traditional grant-based security assistance (e.g. Egypt -style legacy FMF) but would be capability-selective, geographically focused, interoperability-driven, and behavior-conditioned assistance aligned with U.S. Indo-Pacific strategy and calibrated to India’s status as a major power. India is a clear example that traditional approaches for military assistance and grants failed to achieve the desired U.S. security outcomes, often necessitating the use of less desired continency options during times of crisis. This continued failure emphasize the need to reassess and execute a new approach based on real strategic interests and with partners that act rather than those that take.

Other security cooperation tools, such as offering participation in various professional military education and training events, have likewise been treated as universally applicable instruments, often without regards to their actual effectiveness. It has long been argued that even token-tier states should receive U.S. educational programs to maintain influence and shape military cultures. Even these training programs need a hard look to determine “what value does American strategic interests receive?” In an era with over $40 trillion dollars in deficit, hard decisions need to be made which more effectively align military assistance appropriations to national security priorities. Metrics must be developed to determine the effectiveness of these programs to meet American Strategic interests. The United States cannot continue to waste finite resources and mortgage our grandchildren’s future. One training program frequently used, the Department of State funded, Department of War executed International Military Education Training (IMET) costs the American taxpayer between $70-100 million annually, with about 120 countries receiving IMET funding each year. Though IMET represents only a small portion of overall U.S. security assistance to most countries, participation in these programs often fail to identify or quantify any return on investment, and fail to allocate student positions based upon the strategic significance of the allied state. Thus, military education programs such as IMET to not effectively align national security priorities with military assistance appropriations. Pakistan provides what can be considered as a strong, well-documented example of this problem. Pakistan has both persistent IMET participation coupled and inconsistent or contradictory alignment with U.S. strategic interests. Pakistani officers regularly attend senior professional development courses such as the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, the Naval War College and the Air War College. Thousands of Pakistani officers have been exposed to U.S. doctrine, civilian control norms and professional military ethics. In theory, this should increase interoperability, trust, and alignment. However, Pakistan has routinely pursued policies that undermine U.S. objectives. They worked in direct contradiction to U.S. counterterrorism goals in Afghanistan, supporting the Afghan Taliban  and Haqqani terror network, as well as deepening ties and strategic alignment with China.

Mismatches in the current allocation of Foreign Military Financing generate three interrelated strategic inefficiencies. First, they create reverse leverage. When large, unconditional FMF packages are treated by recipient states as guaranteed entitlements rather than contingent instruments of influence, the United States loses what might be called the “leverage of the next dollar.” Instead of serving as a bargaining tool for specific policy concessions or behavioral alignment, assistance becomes politically insulated from recipient conduct. In such cases, aid can actually reduce U.S. influence, as partner governments pursue independent – or even contradictory—policies with confidence that funding will continue regardless of behavior. Recent tensions surrounding the Gaza war illustrated this dynamic. Egypt and Israel, despite being two of the largest FMF recipients globally and receiving billions annually, diverged from Washington’s stated preferences A similar pattern emerged in Niger, which between 2017 and 2023, received roughly $500 million in military assistance before the ruling junta declared the U.S. presence unlawful, prompting American withdrawal.

Second, the current model results in strategic underinvestment in emerging partners. States central to long-term great-power competition—India and Vietnam—have expanded security cooperation with the United States and are directly relevant to balancing China, yet they remain comparatively peripheral in FMF allocations. This creates a structural imbalance between legacy recipients and strategically pivotal emerging partners.

Third, there is persistent misalignment between FMF and measurable gains in interoperability and burden sharing. Quantitative analysis has previously demonstrated that alignment improves when assistance is linked to enhanced interoperability, stronger regional security contributions, and deeper U.S.–partner military cooperation. Yet Washington rarely conditions FMF on these metrics in a systematic way. A reformed assistance model must therefore correct these inefficiencies by tying funding to clearly defined, measurable strategic returns, shifting FMF from entitlement-based distribution to performance-conditioned alignment

But Washington rarely uses Foreign Military Financing as an incentive for those metrics. A reformed model must confront these inefficiencies by tying assistance to measurable returns.

Four-Tier Model for Strategic Allocation

The development of a four-tier Foreign Military Assistance allocation system is necessary to transform military assistance and aid from a legacy-driven entitlement system into a performance-based instrument of strategic statecraft. By differentiating partners according to alignment, leverage responsiveness, interoperability, and geostrategic value, the offered model ensures that finite U.S. resources are allocated where they generate the highest strategic return on investment. The offered Four-Tier model offers a rational, empirically grounded alternative. It organizes U.S. military assistance according to demonstrated alignment and strategic potential.

Tier 1

High alignment, high strategic return. Tier 1 partners demonstrate consistent foreign policy alignment with Washington and maintain a high level of military-2-military interoperability. These countries constitute the backbone of U.S. regional strategies, with  and concentration of security cooperation resources reflecting their central strategic importance. FMF to Tier 1 partners is design to strengthen deterrence architectures. In the Indo-Pacific, integration with Australia and Japan enhances collective deterrence against China. In the Middle East, Israel’s integrated air defense contributes to regional missile defense networks. Funding reinforces the backbone of U.S. regional strategies by embedding allied militaries into U.S. led operational frameworks. Tier 1 priority investment activities represent a return on investments (weapons and funds) meeting expected strategic returns.

Priority investments:

• advanced defense capabilities such as advanced air and missile defense
• co-production and co-development pathways
• joint basing and access agreement
• deepening intelligence and data-sharing architectures

Tier 2

Moderate alignment; high potential for deeper U.S. integration. Tier 2 partners exhibit moderate alignment but possess significant potential for deeper integration. They are geographically positioned to provide strategic value to U.S. regional security interests but lack the capabilities or resources necessary to fully and effectively integrate into U.S.-led security architectures. India and Vietnam are examples of countries that should be considered eligible for Tier 2 designation. Many states are willing to expand cooperation but lack the capabilities or resources to fully integrate into U.S.-led security architectures. FMF here accelerates interoperability and builds long-term habits of cooperation.

Priority investments:

• maritime domain awareness
• air and missile defense interoperability
• joint training infrastructure
• modernization of legacy (often Russian origin) platforms

These are partners the United States can “grow” into key strategic contributors and closer structural alignment. For countries such as India and Vietnam, targeted maritime and ISR investments strengthen Indo-Pacific balancing. Another consideration for a Tier 2 country is the Philippines, where enhanced interoperability can reinforce treaty alliance commitments and deterrence in the South China Sea. Tier 2 is where Tier 1 partners are grown with targeted security cooperation, military assistance, and formalized foreign military sales (FMS) programs.

Tier 3

Necessary for regional stability, but not ideal long-term alignment candidates. Some states are essential for counterterrorism, counter-piracy, or regional stabilization, even if their overall alignment with the United States is weak or inconsistent. Examples of suitable partners  for this tier are countries like Egypt and Jordan. These partners are useful for basing or overflight access, contributing to regional security but demonstrate inconsistent broader alignment. FMF supports these governments within a broader stability framework.

Priority investments:

• defensive or non-offensive systems
• institutional capacity building
• human-rights-linked CT support
• targeted intelligence and logistics programs

These partnerships serve the structure of regional security—even if they do not serve deep strategic alignment. Tier 3 countries and its associated assistance sustain the regional security architecture. Jordan’s plays a significant role in counterterrorism and border control within the Levant. Egyptian control of the Suez and their counter-terrorism activities in the Sinai support the U.S. Central Command’s priorities. Tier 3 assistance should be calibrated to maintain stability without creating entitlement or reverse leverage.

Tier 4

Low alignment, high risk, or politically volatile. These states receive small, highly conditional packages to maintain minimal access, prevent adversarial encroachment, or preserve diplomatic channels. Support is deliberately limited, highly conditional, and focused on maintaining minimal engagement to prevent adversarial encroachment. Examples of suitable countries for a Tier 4 designation are Pakistan and Niger. This tier preserves diplomatic channels, maintains military-to-military relationships, and prevents strategic vacuums that could be exploited by competitors.

Priority investments:

• training and military education programs (such as IMET)
• light defense systems
• limited counterterrorism support
• symbolic security cooperation

Token-tier FMF prevents the U.S. from losing influence without rewarding counterproductive partner behavior, thereby maintaining optionality without overcommitment.

The Dimensions of Evaluations: The Independent Variables

The independent variables used to evaluate each possible partner can be expressed using the acronym LIFT: Leverage, Integration, Framework Value, and Token Value. The acronym suggests the “lifting” partners for interoperability and burden sharing necessary for collective security and defense.

• L – Leverage (Primary Driver of FMF Impact)

Definition: The degree to which FMF can change, shape, or influence a partner’s alignment behavior.

High Leverage = FMF produces meaningful alignment movement
Low Leverage = FMF does not significantly alter behavior

Examples of high leverage countries: Jordan, Philippines.
Examples of low leverage countries: Saudi Arabia, India.

Leverage is the most important factor – because FMF must produce an effect.

• I – Integration (Interoperability & Joint Defense Capacity)

Definition: The extent to which a partner’s military is connected to U.S. systems, doctrine, exercises, training, and logistics.

Indicators include:

• FMS dependency (heavily dependent on U.S. origin systems and weaponry)
• Joint exercises
• Basing access
• Shared communications / ISR nodes
• NATO-style interoperability programs

High Integration = FMF strengthens long-term military convergence.
Low Integration = FMF has limited structural effect.

• F – Framework Value (Geostrategic and Institutional Importance)

Definition: The strategic role a country plays in U.S. security architecture, including alliance structures, geography, and bilateral agreements.

Measurement to determine importance of bilateral relationship. Phrased differently, to determine “why does this country matters.”

Examples:

• MNNA status
• Indo-Pacific or CENTCOM strategic relevance
• Role in regional balance (Iran, China, etc.)
• Basing corridors, sea lanes, choke points

Framework value captures importance, not responsiveness.

A country can be strategically critical (Saudi Arabia) but still low leverage.

• T – Token Value (Symbolic or Political Significance)

Definition: The political, diplomatic, or symbolic benefits of providing FMF—even in small amounts.

Token value asks:

• Does FMF send an important political signal?
• Does it reward reform?
• Does it anchor a narrative of U.S. commitment?
• Does it deter adversaries simply by being present?

This matters especially for:

• Small states
• Symbolic partners
• Political coalition building
• Region-shaping diplomacy

These processes have several advantages, the higher you “lift”, the larger the FMF allocation. For basic framing of any tier, the initial workup could allow for a dynamic scoring process that includes both quantitative and qualitative data. Examples of quantitative should include the percentage of US origin equipment within the defense and security forces in question, recipient state NATO interoperability rating, frequency of joint, combined and bilateral exercises and operations, and UNGA voting records. Qualitative data can include evaluations on leadership, as well as their willingness to partner with U.S. forces. The adoption of a rating system would also allow qualitative inputs that include regional stabilization and security roles; basing or force visitation rights and permissions; as well as policy commitments. Examples of these pathways can be expanding joint or bilateral operations and exercises or increasing procurement of U.S. systems and platforms. Any tiered system constructed to facilitate the allocation of Foreign Military Financing should also include explicit criteria to avoid misunderstandings or politicization of the processes, as well as those waiver conditions needed for urgent strategic needs.

Recommended Path Forward

Utilizing a tiered model offers a practical and disciplined alternative to legacy FMF allocation approaches, without requiring an increase in the overall budget. Rather than expanding funding levels, the framework reallocates existing resources to maximize strategic return. At its core, the LIFT model would institutionalize an annual, performance-based assessment process. Each partner would be evaluated using measurable alignment indicators, including interoperability indices, UN General Assembly voting coincidence, regional threat and security contribution metrics, and the depth of military-to-military cooperation. Currently, the allocation of foreign military financing is a multi-step process involving executive determination, legislative appropriation, with allocations are often guided by long-term memoranda of understanding (MOU) or multi-year strategic agreements. Currently, the Secretary of State determines countries and amounts, Congress funds, and DoD implements. The proposed path forward seeks to establish a regularized review that would ensure that assistance levels reflect current behavior and strategic value, not historical precedent or outdated agreements.

A key reform would involve shifting approximately 20–30 percent of FMF resources from low-return partners to those demonstrating high alignment or strong growth potential. Even without increasing total appropriations, such rebalancing would significantly enhance U.S. leverage by directing funds toward partners where assistance produces measurable improvements in interoperability, burden sharing, and regional security outcomes. At the same time, establishing funding ceilings by tier would prevent over-investment in marginal or unreliable partners, regardless of political pressure or excess budget availability. Caps ensure that resources remain strategically disciplined and performance conditioned.

Finally, FMF should be embedded within broader strategic access and advanced cooperation agreements. Assistance would function less as a grant and more as a structured investment tied to reciprocal commitments – similar in principle to a mortgage contract in which both parties incur obligations. Failure to uphold agreed-upon terms – such as basing access, operational cooperation, or procurement commitments – would trigger meaningful penalties, including funding reductions or tier downgrades. In this way, FMF would directly underpin basing access, secure military data exchange, co-development initiatives, and joint training modernization. The result is a dynamic assistance architecture in which funding supports enduring integration, not episodic transactions.

Reclaiming Strategic Purpose

In the era of great-power competition, the United States cannot rely on outdated formulas that reward history rather than performance, or political idealism rooted in Internation Relations Liberalism. Military assistance must become a strategic tool rather than a habitual subsidy. The recommended Four-Tier model; grounded in measurable data, empirical evaluation, and strategic prioritization, offers a roadmap for revitalizing U.S. leverage. By aligning FMF and other security cooperation components with the behaviors and outcomes that Washington requires to achieve its regional security objectives, the United States can strengthen alliances, shape partner trajectories, and ensure that military assistance contributes meaningfully to national security.

Bottom line, the world has changed. U.S. military assistance must change with it.

The post Revamping U.S. Military Assistance: A Four-Tier Model for a New Strategic Era appeared first on Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University.