PUBLISHED BY HISTORICAL SERVICES BRANCH, PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, ARLINGTON VA, 2014 
THE NATIONAL GUARD 

STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Forging and Maintaining Effective Security Cooperation 

Partnerships for the 21st Century

BY WILLIAM B. BOEHM, WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY 

DEREK NESTELL AND STEVEN STEARNS

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

HISTORICAL SERVICES BRANCH

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22204

Layout and design by LM&O Advertising
CAPTIONS, CLOCKWISE FROM UPPER LEFT PHOTO, FRONT COVER:

Sgt. 1st Class Tony Duben, of Devils Lake, N.D., works with Staff Sgt. Quave, a soldier in the Ghana Army, to prepare 

explosives for detonation in February 2011. Duben and Sgt. 1st Class Paul Deegan, both instructors with the North Dakota 

National Guard’s 164th Regional Training Institute, traveled to Ghana as part of a combat engineer instructor exchange. 

Two Ghanaian instructors have spent the past two weeks in North Dakota as part of the latter half of the exchange. 

Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Paul Deegan, North Dakota National Guard.

Army Gen. Frank J. Grass, chief of the National Guard Bureau, talks with Mongolian soldiers serving in Afghanistan, 

Jan. 15, 2013. Mongolia is partnered with Alaska in the National Guard State Partnership Program. U.S. Army photo by 

Sgt. 1st Class Jim Greenhill.

Lt. Gen. (USAF) John B. Conaway (fourth from left), is greeted upon his arrival in Riga, Latvia by unidentified members 

of the Latvian Defense Force (in brown coats), along with other local officials on Nov. 16, 1992. Accompanying Lt. Gen. 

Conaway is Brig. Gen. (USAF) Thomas Lennon, on the extreme right. This trip to the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and 

Estonia), the first by officials of a Western state in over 50 years, marked the accession of the National Guard State 

Partnership Program. Photo courtesy of retired Col. Max Alston.

New Jersey Army National Guard soldier and an unidentified Albanian physician clasp hands in a gesture of friendship, 

July 2007. This took place during a Unit Level Exchange, part of the ongoing bilateral relationship that the New Jersey 

National Guard maintains with the Republic of Albania. This is part of the State Partnership Program, sponsored by the 

National Guard Bureau and European Command. Photograph by Capt. (USAF) Jon Powers, New Jersey National Guard.

CAPTIONS, CLOCKWISE FROM TOP PHOTO, BACK COVER:

Spc. Eric D. Mackey and his Serbian army civilian counterpart Milosevic Miroslay share stories of the day’s work at 

Svetozar Markovic elementary school in Lapovo, Serbia, where they are completing renovations together through the 

National Guard Bureau State Partnership Program. Ohio and Serbia have been partnered since 2006. Department of 

Defense photo by 1st Lt. Nicole Ashcroft.

A Vermont National Guardsman observes a Macedonian military policeman during the rifle marksmanship training portion 

of Operation Rising Phalanx, which took place in Krivolak, Macedonia Sept. 9-22, 2006. The U.S. European Command 

State Partnership Program sponsored field exercise culminated a 10-month small unit exchange to train Macedonian 

Army military police platoons to take part in international peacekeeping missions. The State Partnership Program, which 

originated in 1993, links a National Guard state with a partner nation in support of USEUCOM’s Theater Security Cooperation objectives. Department of Defense photo.

Maj. Gen. Deborah A. Ashenhurst (right), Ohio National Guard Adjutant General, talks with newly appointed female 

Serbian officers. Photo by Staff Sgt. Peter Kresge.

Boehm, William B., author. 

The National Guard State Partnership Program Forging and Maintaining Effective Security Cooperation Partnerships for 

the 21st Century / by William B. Boehm, with Derek Nestell and Steven Stearns 

pages cm 

Includes bibliographical references. 

ISBN XXX-X-XXXXXX-XX-X

1. State Partnership Program. I. Title.

XXXXXXXXXX

XXXX

XXXX

To obtain copies of this document, please contact the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov / Phone / Fax / Mail

ii THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
THE NATIONAL GUARD 

STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Forging and Maintaining Effective Security Cooperation 

Partnerships for the 21st Century

BY WILLIAM B. BOEHM, WITH CONTRIBUTIONS BY 

DEREK NESTELL AND STEVEN STEARNS

Published by Historical Services Branch

Office of Public Affairs

National Guard Bureau

Arlington VA, 2014

NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

HISTORICAL SERVICES BRANCH

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22204
iv THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM: 

FORGING AND MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE SECURITY COOPERATION 

PARTNERSHIPS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

FOREWORD vi

PREFACE vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS viii

CHAPTER ONE: 1

Beginnings of the State Partnership Program 

CHAPTER TWO: 11

Establishing the SPP in Europe and Central Asia 

CHAPTER THREE: 26

Expanding the SPP from Europe to the Western Hemisphere 

CHAPTER FOUR 36

Establishing the SPP in Asia and Africa 

CHAPTER FIVE: 45

Partnerships at Work: Providing International Security 

Solutions in Support of Defense Strategy 

CHAPTER SIX: 52

The SPP: Department of Defense Program of Record 

CHAPTER SEVEN: 58

The SPP: Security Cooperation Model for the 21st Century 

APPENDICES 66

SPP MILESTONES 77

ACRONYMS 79

BIOGRAPHIES 80

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
vi THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

FOREWORD

Maintaining alliances and developing partnerships have 

long been fundamental elements of U.S. security 

strategy. Ensuring a stable international system is 

beyond the capacity of a single nation. It requires 

the collective efforts of like-minded countries willing to shoulder 

responsibilities for promoting global peace and security. The United 

States depends on robust foreign relationships to help protect its 

national security and advance a peaceful world.

In this context, I am pleased to introduce this monograph on the 

history of the National Guard State Partnership Program (SPP). 

Titled The National Guard State Partnership Program: Forging and 

Maintaining Effective Security Cooperation Partnerships for the 21st 

Century, it provides a comprehensive overview of SPP’s achievements over 

the past 20 years and highlights its promise for the future.

Launched in 1992 as part of the United States Department of Defense 

(DOD) and United States European Command initiatives to engage 

with the defense ministries and armed forces of the newly independent 

nations of the Baltics, Central and Eastern Europe and Eurasia, the SPP 

has 68 partnerships with 74 nations around the globe as of 2014. The 

concept of partnering a National Guard state organization with a foreign 

country’s defense ministry and armed forces, or the equivalent, for skills 

exchanges, military exercises, planning drills, information sharing, crisis 

management collaboration, defense reform, military modernization 

projects, and professional development has proven to be an excellent 

means of security cooperation in direct support of the Geographic 

Combatant Commanders. 

The long-term, enduring relationships forged between National Guard 

soldiers and airmen and their SPP partner nation defense and military 

counterparts have enabled us to work closely together on shared missions 

in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the Balkans and the Sinai in Egypt. Twelve 

SPP partner nations have become NATO members and five more are 

aspirants for membership. Two of the five U.S. treaty allies in the Pacific 

are SPP partners and all of the 22 SPP partner countries in the Western 

Hemisphere have shared security responsibilities as members of the 

Organization of American States.

These SPP relationships are true partnerships. Based on reciprocity, 

mutual benefit and mutual respect, the SPP stands out as an innovative, 

low-cost, small-footprint/high-impact program that can help keep 

our alliances fit, strengthen existing partnerships, and develop new 

ones. DOD Strategic Guidance and the Defense Budget Priorities and 

Choices Fiscal Year 2014 both note the importance of building partnership capacity with friends and allies for sharing the costs and responsibilities of global leadership. The National Guard is grateful that SPP is 

identified in both documents as one of the key partnership development 

efforts that are worthy of increased DOD investment.

The purpose of this monograph is to convey that strong, mutually 

beneficial relationships are crucial to maintain the capacity of the United 

States and our friends and allies to work together to meet common 

security challenges. As we seek to create a more robust culture of defense 

cooperation in an era of evolving security challenges and limited defense 

resources, I trust the success of the SPP can serve as a valuable reference. 

Frank J. Grass

General, USA

Chief, National Guard Bureau
PREFACE

This monograph commemorates the 20th anniversary of 

the National Guard’s State Partnership Program (SPP) in 

2013. It provides a narrative history of the program from 

its inception following momentous changes in Central 

and Eastern Europe and Eurasia in the early years of the last decade 

of the 20th century; continues through the early development of the 

program, its expansion to six Geographic Combatant Commands; and 

concludes with observations on the significance of the program today 

and for the future as it builds enduring and strategic security relationships with countries across the globe.

The SPP has evolved from a small program that was virtually unknown 

outside the National Guard to a program strongly supported by all the 

Combatant Commands and widely acknowledged by our nation’s executive and legislative leadership. The reader is encouraged to keep in mind 

that the program has developed steadily over its 20-year history to meet 

national security objectives identified in higher-level policy guidance. 

Policy requirements change to meet complex security challenges, and th

SPP has demonstrated over the years its flexibility in supporting evolvin

national security and foreign policy objectives.

The SPP originated when legislation, policy and the very construct of 

security cooperation existed in a formative stage. In those days, Comba

ant Commanders were known as CINCs, or, Commanders-in-Chief 

of their respective commands. Office personnel had recently ended the 

use of typewriters and embraced the newest computers. The Secretary 

of Defense’s (SecDef) Security Cooperation Guidance was two pages 

long. The Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF), Quadrennial 

Defense Review (QDR), and other strategic-level guidance did not exis

The year 2005 marked a significant turning point as seminal guidance 

was issued through new products and direction. Those who manage 

security cooperation programs today have a combined set of directives 

and guidance, including National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) 

44, establishing Stability Operations; Department of Defense (DOD) 
Directive 3000.05, establishing Stability Operations as a core function of DOD akin to offensive and defensive operations; Secretary of 

Defense’s memo to the National Security Council regarding security 

cooperation organizational challenges; the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff task force on security cooperation reform; and the maturation 

of the GEF, Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, the Joint Capability Areas, 

and the Joint Universal Task List.

This 20-year maturation is manifest within the SPP, as the “program” 

sits between the executive and legislative branches with respect to 

doctrine and mission versus legislation. The SPP bridges the organizational constructs of State and Defense, with varying levels of ownership 

between Air Force, Army and Joint, and the vertical application of states 

versus federal interests with respect to internal security and engagement. 

The states have a vested interest and are key contributors as well as 

sub-national actors.

The monograph trajectory is as follows: Chapter 1 describes the emergence of the SPP from a concept developed by Chief, National Guard 

Bureau Lt. Gen. John Conaway into functional and robust security 

cooperation relationships with newly independent countries in Eastern 

Europe in the early 1990s. Chapter 2 discusses the expansion of the SPP 

into most of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Chapter 3 shifts focus 

to the Western Hemisphere to explain the expansion of the SPP as a 

program built upon previous ad hoc security cooperation relationships 

in the region from the 1980s and earlier. Chapter 4 describes the growth 

of the SPP in Asia and Africa and how mutually beneficial activities in 

those regions have addressed security challenges. Chapter 5 provides 

examples of how SPP relationships with partner countries have been 

leveraged to provide practical and functional dividends in the form of 

co-deployments, co-security training, and other burden-sharing in Iraq, 

Afghanistan and elsewhere. Chapter 6 examines the rise of the SPP to the 

status of Program of Record within the DOD; how SPP has navigated 

new responsibilities in planning, reporting and oversight; and how the 

National Guard Bureau is taking a new look at the policy and authorities affecting the scope and execution of SPP activities and adapting 

the program accordingly. Chapter 7 underscores the significance of the 

program today and looks at the future of the SPP as it builds upon existing relationships, considers new ones, and proactively addresses complex 

challenges in the 21st century in a resource-constrained environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The research, writing and editing of this work would not 

have been possible had it not been for the assistance of 

many talented individuals representing a broad spectrum 

of interests. The success and continued growth of the State 

Partnership Program (SPP) has depended upon the cooperation of many 

people in its 20 years of existence, and the writing of this monograph has 

similarly depended on extensive cooperation among the staff in the Public 

Affairs Directorate of the National Guard Bureau and elsewhere.

First, allow me to thank Gen. Frank J. Grass, Chief, National Guard 

Bureau (CNGB), who supported the publication of this work. I also wish 

to convey my sincere appreciation to the former Chief, General Craig R. 

McKinley. He initially commissioned this book in 2011.

Two staff members of Historical Services, Steven Stearns and Derek 

Nestell, contributed to the research and writing of the manuscript. 

They also conducted several oral history interviews with state Adjutant 

Generals, SPP coordinators, Joint Force Headquarters staffs, and other 

program officials.

Many thanks to LTC Jeffrey Larrabee, Chief, Historical Services Branch, 

for continuing to encourage our team to fine-tune this work for it to 

become a valuable resource for the SPP. Mr. Al Miller, former Chief, 

Historical Services assisted with editing. Our other colleague, USA Maj. 

Tom Mehl, provided assistance and encouragement along the way. USA 

Lt. Col. Les’ Melnyk, Chief, Strategic Communication and our former 

colleague from the History Branch also contributed editorial assistance 

to my first draft. He provided excellent counsel in the process of writing 

many of the sections of the manuscript. 

Many thanks go to the Public Affairs Directorate staff, most notably the 

Command Information staff. They helped locate photographs for the 

book, assisted Historical Services with video interviews, and facilitated 

our requests to state Public Affairs Offices for additional images that 

augment the great work being done in the states and overseas. Branch 

viii THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix

Chief USAF Maj. Randy Saldivar, USA Sgts. 1st Class Michael Houk, 

and Jim Greenhill and Master Sgt. Paul Mouilleseaux, and Staff Sgt. 

Michael Dann all lent valuable assistance. 

Special thanks also go out to the many respondents who consented to 

be interviewed for this monograph. First among them was retired Lt. 

Gen. John Conaway, who, along with retired Cols. Vance Renfroe, Max 

Alston, and Wayne Gosnell, agreed to a comprehensive interview about 

the beginnings of the SPP. They are true gentlemen in every sense of the 

word. The many state officials, including state adjutants general, who 

participated in oral history interviews, also provided valuable insight 

into the program. Partner country personnel participated in this project 

as well, which provided additional perspective. We were fortunate to 

interview Her Excellency, the president of the Republic of Kosovo, 

Atifete Jahjaga, whose interview will be incorporated into an associated 

video on the SPP.

I want to thank Mr. John Malthaner, NGB Public Affairs, particularly 

for his comprehensive editing of the bulk of my manuscript. John is 

a consummate professional and a great wordsmith, and his excellent 

editing skills enhanced the readability of this work. Thanks also to USA 

Col. Eric Maxon, Chief of NGB Public Affairs, for his faith and support 

throughout this project.

USA Col. Tracy Settle, director of International Engagement for the 

National Guard Bureau’s International Affairs Division, graciously 

agreed to be consulted for this project. Col. Settle’s knowledge of the 

SPP at the NGB is detailed and comprehensive, and we were fortunate to receive his insights on the program. The International Affairs 

Division staff was especially helpful in reviewing this monograph and 

providing recommendations. 

I also would like to thank Mr. Mark Bour, Mr. Mike Braun, Mr. Jay 

Gates, Mr. Mike Lashinsky, Mr. Jon McIntosh, and Ms. Hiam Nawas 

for their editorial advice and review of my chapters. Mark’s and Jay’s 

suggestions based on their extensive knowledge of the program were 

very helpful. Mike Braun provided special expertise that helped frame 

the SPP in terms of security cooperation doctrinal changes over the 

years. Mike Lashinsky provided a fresh perspective and critical eye that 

were very helpful in this collaborative effort. Jon’s editorial advice added 

greatly to the work. His insight and expertise, particularly with regard 

to funding and the future strategy of the SPP, were indispensable. Hiam 

brought a needed international viewpoint to this publication, and her 

editorial comments helped the readability of the document a great deal. 

One final resounding “thank you” goes to Dr. John Finney, former 

Foreign Policy Advisor (POLAD) to the Chief, National Guard Bureau, 

and currently Special Advisor for International Security Cooperation. 

Dr. Finney’s far-reaching knowledge of international affairs made me 

highly aware of the complexity of this project. He encouraged me to 

examine the initial framework of the SPP with regard to NATO and the 

Central and Eastern European republics. He reminded me to include 

the importance of the Geographic Combatant Commands and provided 

necessary structure through his counsel. Above all, Dr. Finney encouraged the Historical Services Branch to resume its work with this project 

when it once appeared to be dormant. His faith and support in my ability to complete this work has been greatly appreciated. 

To all other individuals associated with the SPP and all those working 

in support of it, please accept my unwavering gratitude for your 

generosity and assistance in completing this project. 

Thank you all very much.

William B. Boehm

Arlington, Va.

March 31, 2014
CHAPTER 1

BEGINNINGS OF THE STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM
The weather was cold and rainy the morning of Sunday, 

November 15, 1992, as a Boeing 727 jet awaited 38 

passengers and 10 air crew members on the tarmac of 

Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. The 7 a.m. flight 

would take this group to the Baltic Republic of Latvia. The plan was 

to spend two days in the capital city of Riga, then continue on to the 

neighboring countries of Estonia and Lithuania. The pending departure 

created an air of anticipation, as the group was headed to destinations 

that had been closed to the Western world for more than four decades. 

The 38 passengers were a joint interagency group representing the 

National Guard Bureau (NGB), United States European Command 

(USEUCOM), the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), U.S. Department of State (DOS), defense 

attachés from all three Baltic republics, and a team of civilian physicians and National Guard emergency planners. They were embarking 

on the first steps of a program that would become a key component of 

the Department of Defense (DOD) security cooperation strategy in the 

years following the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. New 

countries were emerging from the swift changes taking place in the early 

1990s, and the DOD sought to engage the defense and military establishments of these new nations and offer assistance with their modernization and transformation. This trip marked the beginning of enduring 

international engagement through a unique DOD security cooperation 

program that would spread worldwide over the next 20 years.1

The National Guard State Partnership Program (SPP) arose out of 

DOD efforts to assist the militaries of the former Soviet bloc nations of 

Central and Eastern Europe transition to democratic rule following the 

collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Given the new international security environment following the fall of 

the Soviet state, a serious debate had begun in the United States and in 

within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) over whether 

the alliance should expand eastward. Some argued that the alliance had 

served its purpose, including former DOS policy planning chief and 

leading Russian analyst George Kennan, the most prominent U.S. expert 

in Cold War foreign relations from post-World War II to the 1990s.2

Despite some opposition, NATO formed the North Atlantic Cooperation Council (NACC) to include former Soviet bloc countries in the 

discussion of non-NATO member security cooperation. This was chartered 

by the Rome NATO summit in November 1991. By March 1992, 37 

members had joined, including all former Soviet republics and Albania.3

In its early meetings, NACC members discussed defense and security 

planning issues related to the political changes taking place in early 1992. 

CHANGING TIMES, SHIFTING RESOURCES

At this opportune time, the National Guard offered its expertise as 

the United States’ oldest military force. It had been seeking ways to 

continue its valuable contributions to U.S. national security overseas 

following the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Warsaw Pact was no 

longer a threat. The challenge was in winning peace. The NGB saw an 

opportunity to leverage the skills and versatility of its citizen-soldiers 

and airmen at the grassroots level to build a lasting peace for America’s 

former adversaries.

In a letter dated January 2, 1992, Chief of the National Guard Bureau 

(CNGB), U.S. Air Force (USAF) Lt. Gen. John B. Conaway informed 

Chairman of the JCS, U.S. Army (USA) Gen. Colin L. Powell that 

the National Guard stood ready to offer advice and provide personnel 

to any initiative that would allow the newly independent countries of 

Central and Eastern Europe an opportunity to consider a “National 

Guard structure.” 4

 Conaway’s letter made Powell and the DOD 

hierarchy aware of the National Guard’s willingness to support 

transition missions in Europe and serve as a template for institutional 

reinvention. Conaway then instructed his staff to construct a framewor

for assisting the former Soviet bloc countries. This document would 

first be shared with Vice Chief of the NGB (VCNGB), USA Maj. Gen

William Navas.

Conaway’s executive staff included capable analysts that offered crucial 

advice at this important juncture. Three principals involved in the early 

stages of formulating what would eventually become the SPP were 

USAF Col. Vance Renfroe, Kentucky Air National Guard, Air Nationa

Guard (ANG) director of Operations and Programs; Col. Wayne 

Gosnell, Army National Guard (ARNG), chief of the NGB Office of 

International Initiatives, which later became the NGB International 

Affairs Division (NGB-IA); and Max Alston, a retired USA Reserve 

colonel working on Military Support to Civil Authority (MSCA) issues 

in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (OUSDP). 

This trio brought strengths from a wide range of work experiences and 

viewpoints. Renfroe brought a wealth of international perspective from 

his administrative background with the ANG, while Gosnell worked 

well among the different DOD and USEUCOM interests in constructing far-reaching plans to assist emerging democracies in Europe. Alston 

brought his expertise in disaster response and emergency preparedness. 

The backgrounds of these individuals underscored the diverse skill sets 

that the National Guard and Reserves could contribute at this critical 

time in history.5
2 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

RIGHT: Letter from Gen. Colin L. Powell 

to Lt. Gen. John B. Conaway, expressing

his gratitude for the offer of assistance 

from the National Guard to “create 

a responsible military force within a 

democratic society,” January 24, 1992. 

(Courtesy retired Col. Max Alston)

On January 9, 1992, working closely 

with Renfroe, Gosnell submitted an 

initial framework to VCNGB Navas. It 

outlined a course of action on proposed

National Guard involvement in support

of DOD objectives in Central Europe 

and Eurasia. Building upon earlier 

discussions, Gosnell’s memo pointed ou

that participation in a security cooperation program would further enhance 

the training readiness of National Guard

personnel. He wrote that, above all, 

“participation in the [Eastern European]

region would demonstrate the unique 

capabilities of the National Guard as a 

tool of foreign policy.”6

The message that the National Guard 

wished to convey to the DOD community was simple: 

The National Guard stands ready 

to advise and assist in the formation of U.S.-style National Guard 

military structures in the countries 

of the former Soviet Union, the 

Baltic Republics and the former Warsaw Pact, and to assist authorities in cooperative self-help projects to enhance democratization and 

stabilization of the countries of the region.7

The DOD responded quickly. A letter from Powell made it clear that he 

wanted the National Guard to participate in Eastern Europe. In a 

February 18, 1992 briefing Conaway identified possible areas of cooperation in military-to-military exchanges that included military education, 

personnel management, budget/finance, force structure, military justice, 

civil affairs and National Guard/Reserve affairs.8

Conaway’s brief also detailed a list of specific capabilities that the 

National Guard could provide, including expertise establishing a 

decentralized system of deployable reserves; teams for cooperative 

t 

humanitarian or civic assistance projects; and personnel with civilian 

sector skills to supplement other U.S. government initiatives.

Research and factual analysis were essential for a military-to-military 

contact program to become accepted. Conaway and the NGB leadership team presented their findings on the advantages of military-tomilitary exchanges to the U.S. mission to NATO in March 1992. The 

concept continued to be shaped while the DOD formulated appropriate 

responses to the first months of post-Soviet history.

In addition to Powell, another high-level principal advocating stronger 

ties to former Soviet bloc countries was Supreme Allied Commander 

(SACEUR) of NATO and Commander in Chief (CINC) of USEUCOM 
CHAPTER I: BEGINNINGS OF THE STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 

Gen. John Shalikashvili, who wanted to involve the National Guard 

to an even greater degree in Eastern Europe. Faced with the possibility 

of U.S. troop presence in Europe shrinking by nearly two-thirds, 

Shalikashvili saw the presence of the National Guard in Eastern Europe 

as a way to counter decreased active duty troop numbers. Moreover, the 

introduction of active duty USA troops in the former Soviet bloc could 

have appeared confrontational to Russia. Shalikashvili understood that 

National Guard outreach would appear less threatening.9

OFFICIAL BEGINNINGS

On April 1, 1992, Secretary of Defense (SecDef) Dick Cheney 

announced U.S. intentions in Eastern Europe during an address to 

Foreign Ministers at NATO Headquarters in Brussels. Cheney stated 

that “our effort today to broaden and deepen our mutual relations [is] 

an effort that can make an important contribution to our ultimate goal 

of a united, free, and peaceful Europe.”10

Cheney articulated several important priorities when approaching 

former Soviet bloc countries. Most of the goals sought to improve 

economic conditions suffered under Communism, but three particular 

points held military relevance:

• Helping to build democracy through the appropriate roles for

European militaries including civilian command, a hallmark of

Western democracies.

• Pursuing humanitarian assistance through, for example, joint

search and rescue exercises with forces of interested nations,

emphasizing flood control, earthquake relief, and plane crash

rescue procedures.

• Developing a capability to participate with other institutions in

strengthening crisis management mechanisms.11

These three points spoke to the inherent strengths of the National 

Guard. First, the National Guard is a military organization with civilian 

command under the state governors and the president of the United 

States. The National Guard also serves as the lead military facilitator 

in providing humanitarian aid in times of natural disaster and conducting search and rescue operations within the United States. Using 

the National Guard model in Eastern Europe was seen as providing a 

trusted partner to existing disaster management agencies. This would 

enable the military to be seen by the citizens of these newly independent 

countries as a trusted tool of government in a democratic setting, able to 

act without political interference to assist people in need. Therefore, the 

choice of the National Guard to help lead Cheney’s initiatives in Europe 

was appropriate. 

“...participation in the 

[Eastern European] region 

would demonstrate the unique 

capabilities of the National Guard 

as a tool of foreign policy.”

– COLONEL WAYNE GOSNE

AIR NATIONAL GUA

Weeks after Cheney’s speech in Brussels, Deputy Minister of Defence 

for the Republic of Latvia Valdis V. Pavlovskis sent a letter to Col. 

William R. Teske, Defense and Air Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in 

Stockholm. In the letter, Pavlovskis proposed a “defense concept” for 

his country. He outlined political and military principles upheld in the 

defense of Latvia and defined the functions of the State Defense Counc

and State Defense Force. 

A final point of interest was the formation of the Latvian Home Guard

This organization was to be a public and voluntary military service. Its 

main tasks were to protect public facilities and infrastructure and help 

local and national governments in the event of natural or ecological 

disasters and in times of national emergency. To gain further insight int

constructing such an organization, the Latvian government turned to 

the United States, and asked the DOD and USEUCOM for assistance 

in forming a reserve component similar to the National Guard. 

On July 9, 1992, Gosnell wrote in a memorandum to Alston that: 

The National Guard Bureau is anxious to support any Department of Defense initiative aimed at improving relations between the 

United States and the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe. If 

requested by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the National 

Guard Bureau is prepared to lead a delegation of functional experts 

anywhere in the region to assist in any way possible ... we would be 

anxious to pursue the idea further.” 12

Gosnell continued by emphasizing the innovation of states assisting 

new countries in the context of these partnerships, and further pointed 

out the concept of citizen-soldiers and airmen serving as a model 

for a citizen-based democracy. Furthermore, any project assembled 

must meet the needs of the citizens of Latvia and must not create any 

false expectations.
4 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

JOINT CONTACT TEAM PROGRAM AND 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPP

As Central and Eastern European nations worked to establish new directions in their governmental and political framework at this time, USEUCOM organized the Joint Contact Team Program (JCTP) in 1992 as 

a method to establish direct contact with defense ministries and armed 

forces structures. The JCTP was to serve as the main source of foreign 

engagement with the 

new militaries of Central 

and Eastern Europe 

during this critical 

transition. These military 

liaison teams (MLTs) 

consisted of three to five 

U.S. service members 

who worked closely with 

the ministries of defense 

and general staffs in 

each country to arrange 

and coordinate traveling contact team (TCT) 

visits to the country and 

familiarization visits 

(FAM) for host nation 

military personnel to 

visit the United States 

or Western Europe to exchange information on each other’s practices, 

staff and noncommissioned officer (NCO) exchanges, conferences and 

workshops, and ship visits. The initiative that would become the SPP 

was one small part of the JCTP, which later became the most essential 

component of the initiative. 

USEUCOM embraced the SPP as part of the JCTP. National Guard 

personnel operated alongside active component U.S. military personnel 

hed 

s in 

aed 

to move the program forward. JCTP and SPP were quickly establis

beyond the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Program

Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Slov

kia soon followed. Later, Slovenia, Macedonia and Albania welcom

these security cooperation relationships, as did Kazakhstan, Belarus and 

Ukraine.13 Belarus did not continue as a member of the SPP, although 

it was an early partner with the state of Utah.14 From 1992 to 1997, the 

JCTP’s military liaison teams planned and executed more than 5,000 

military-to-military events for 100,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen 

from the United States and former Soviet bloc countries. A significant 

From 1992 to 1997, 

the JCTP’s military 

liaison teams planned 

and executed more 

than 5,000 militaryto-military events for 

100,000 soldiers, 

sailors and airmen 

from the United 

States and former 

Soviet bloc countries.

number of these were made possible through the SPP. Former adversaries 

became partners, and opponents became friends.15

The SPP could not have been implemented without the active and 

enthusiastic cooperation of the state adjutants generals (TAGs) and their 

governors. Typically, the chief of staff of a state would receive a phone 

call from Col. Gosnell asking if the state would be interested in partnering with a certain country. Detailed information would be provided, 

and the state TAG would confer with Lt. Gen. Conaway and/or Maj. 

Gen. Navas, and then seek the governor’s approval. Given that the SPP 

was a new, untested, and largely unfunded mission, the states should be 

given enormous credit for their initiative at this crucial juncture.

THE SPP: A KEY SECURITY COOPERATION 

INITIATIVE IN A NEW ROLE

Although it ultimately proved to be America’s most effective outreach 

mechanism to the emerging democracies of Central and Eastern Europe 

and Eurasia, in the initial stages, the SPP was only one of several key 

initiatives that the DOD formulated to strengthen security cooperation 

in the early 1990s. In order to avoid duplication of effort and to ensure 

proper coordination with host nations, assembling these engagements 

required careful planning. This critical role fell to USEUCOM, which 

possessed the institutional knowledge of the geographical and political 

landscape of Europe derived from its many years of presence in Western 

Europe during the Cold War. 

USEUCOM gave pivotal support to the SPP in its role among the 

various security cooperation programs.16 From the outset, the USEUCOM provided the authority, funding, and direction for SPP engagement in Europe. More importantly, it furnished Title 10 authority to 

the National Guard to serve in federal status under its command. This 

proved critical to the SPP’s ability to conduct initial military-to-military 

exchanges with foreign partners and to demonstrate defense support 

to civilian authorities. The SPP has developed into an enduring model 

of security cooperation in all Geographic Combatant Commands 

(CCMDs) as a result of these early efforts of USEUCOM.

One advantage of establishing a reserve military component in emerging 

European nations was its cost structure. A reserve military component 

served as a practical alternative to a large standing army that needed 

clothing, shelter and other maintenance. In the United States, it had 

been shown that operating a standing army costs 80 percent more than 

a reserve element. 

Trust among civilians and military officers also improved in these countries through the introduction of a citizen-soldier model. Emerging from 
CHAPTER I: BEGINNINGS OF THE STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 

an era dominated by adversarial military-civilian relationships, partner 

country leaders were eager to learn how to establish trust between the 

military and the rank and file citizenry. The U.S. National Guard/

Reserve component model, with citizen-soldiers and airmen serving 

both their nation and local community, found a receptive audience. 

Additionally, local connections motivated and assisted reserve military 

personnel to better sustain their respective communities in the case of 

such emergencies and natural disasters.17 Furthermore, much of the 

training and exercises in the SPP involved military assistance to civilian 

authorities in the case of such emergencies and disasters. As partner 

country militaries and their reserve components became proficient 

in these operations, this approach served as a source of pride and 

dedication to common cause developed in both the military and 

civilian communities.

Unique challenges confronted National Guard planners. The concept 

of military personnel that could work a full-time civilian job and then 

come to the aid of the population in times of disaster was not widely 

embraced in the former Soviet bloc countries. Citizens in those 

countries generally viewed military personnel with suspicion and not as 

fellow citizens working for the good of the country. As noted by Renfroe, 

however, the capabilities of a properly oriented and trained military can 

effectively be used to address natural disasters, civil incidents, or other 

similar events in accordance with local responders. MSCA—the kind 

of response assistance provided by the National Guard at the state level 

in the United States—was a key function. Today it is known as Defense 

Support to Civil Authorities (DSCA), and is a key mission area for the 

National Guard and well-suited in demonstrating interagency cooperation and civilian control of the military. 

INITIAL SPP IMPLEMENTATION

Conaway quickly approved Gosnell’s and Renfroe’s proposed initial 

concept, which would become the SPP. The NGB, at the request of 

the partner countries and USEUCOM, focused initially on the Baltic 

nations for its military-to-military engagements. In the midst of 

ABOVE: National Guard delegation boards plane to Latvia at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, November 15, 1992. (Courtesy retired Col. Max Alston)
6 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

LEFT: Col. Wayne Gosnell (left) conferring with 

Lt. Gen. John B. Conaway (center) and Col. Frank 

Van Fleet (right) en route to the Baltic nations, 

November 16, 1992. (Courtesy retired Col. Max 

Alston) 

THE BALTIC TRIP: 

OPENING CLOSED DOORS

Provided with sufficient financial and national 

policy support, CNGB Lt. Gen Conaway led the 

interagency delegation to the newly independent 

Baltic republics of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. 

Conaway and his delegation arrived in the capital 

of Riga to a warm welcome on November 17, 

1992—the day before the new republic’s Independence Day.

Latvian leadership responded favorably to the prospect of a security 

partnership with the National Guard as part of an effort to reform and 

modernize its armed forces and establish a solid security foundation for 

its emerging democratic state. Conaway was quick to emphasize that 

the partnership was not with the U.S. National Guard but with the 

formulating a visit to Latvia (the program’s first foreign partner), a 

National Guard concept paper drafted in September 1992 described the 

goals of the SPP:

... The idea of a community-based military force functioning in

peacetime under the immediate control of the civilian state governor, 

yet training to go to war when called by the President, is uniquely 

American. The degree to which the U.S. National Guard concept can 

be adapted by Latvia is for them to decide; 

we can assist by providing information 

and experience, which enables them to 

apply in-place civil defense capabilities to 

the entirely new [Latvian] Home Guard.18

Contact was made with the Latvian Defense 

Force and preparations began in earnest in fall 

1992 to travel to Latvia’s capital city of Riga.

NGB’s first trip to the Baltics, the first U.S. 

military delegation to visit the region since 

World War II, included various civilian subject 

matter experts. The first visit facilitated a 

cultural exchange with professionals representing a broad range of American society. The 

delegation included medical civilian doctors, 

civil defense experts, and disaster assistance 

professionals, as well as officials from the DOS 

and military personnel. The trip paved the way 

for future projects in the region and around the 

globe that would use diverse National Guard 

assets to contribute to greater security, enlarged 

capacity, military professionalization and a 

shared sense of common cause. ABOVE: Lt. Gen. Conaway (center) lays a wreath at the Freedom Monument in Riga, Latvia on 

November 18, 1992, Latvian Independence Day. (Courtesy retired Col. Max Alston)
CHAPTER I: BEGINNINGS OF THE STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 

The National Guard In Europe

Many know that the National Guard is a first responder in 

domestic episodes. Yet the Guard’s service in Europe did not 

begin with SPP. 

After the passage of the sweeping National Defense Act of 

1916, the National Guard first served in Europe in World War I 

when President Woodrow Wilson signed a proclamation on 

August 5, 1917 drafting the National Guard into federal service. 

Units participating included the 30th (“Old Hickory”) Infantry 

Division from Tennessee, North Carolina and South Carolina, 

whose grit and courage in battle earned them the most 

Medals of Honor among any unit in the U.S. Army during the 

War. Also notable was the 42nd Infantry Division, better known 

as the “Rainbow Division” that included soldiers from 26 

different states and the District of Columbia. The 42nd Division’s combat record also reflected participation in many of the 

key campaigns of the conflict such as the Champagne-Marne 

and Meuse-Argonne offensives. More than 40 percent of the 

divisional strength of U.S. armed forces in World War I were 

National Guard units. 

Later, the National Guard of the United States also fought in 

World War II. The work of the 36th Infantry Division hailing from 

Texas opened up the Italian front in 1943. After hard fought 

victories turned the tide for the Allied Forces, the 36th turned 

its attention to France, where more Nazi resistance met them 

in August 1944 at the onset of Operation Dragoon. The 36th 

fought alongside the 45th Infantry Division from Oklahoma, 

Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado. Previously, the 29th Infantry 

Division from Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia 

was the first National Guard Division to storm the beaches at 

Omaha on D-Day, June 6, 1944. In all, nine National Guard Divisions served in Europe during World War II.

Later, as part of the “Total Force” concept of national defense 

strategy put forth after the Vietnam War, the National Guard 

was placed as an integral element with both their Army and 

Air Force brethren. As part of the citizen-soldier and airmen’s 

annual training, several units were tapped for overseas duty in 

support of larger Army missions during the ongoing Cold War. 

Some of the key training missions included Operation 

REFORGER, an annual training exercise based in West Germany

Other large Army units had started this exercise in the 1970s; 

however, starting in 1984, National Guard elements participated

including the 30th Armored Brigade based in Tennessee and th

179th Infantry Brigade from Oklahoma.

The REFORGER exercises honed Guard readiness at a time 

when the units sought additional annual training sites and 

scenarios. These overseas training assignments were a 

forerunner of future events. 

The United States Air Force also maintained several Air Bases 

on the European continent through the 1980s. These proved 

essential for overall readiness and support missions. For the Air 

National Guard in particular, they proved critical for times when 

materiel was being staged to remote outposts, especially in 

times of major disaster in countries under Soviet rule (see page 

9 about Armenian earthquake relief).

U.S. government, of which the U.S. National Guard was simply an agent. 

Later, Conaway visited the Freedom Monument in Riga and laid a wreath 

in remembrance for Latvians killed in past conflicts, a moving gesture that 

heralded the shift that embraced the Euro-Atlantic defense community 

and civilian democratic governance. This act also sparked a spirit of cooperation forged by mutual respect and a shared sense of purpose.19

OTHER INTERNATIONAL VISITS, 

LAYING THE GROUNDWORK

After Latvia, most of the delegation continued to Lithuania. Part of 

the medical team stayed in Latvia, working in a humanitarian capacity. 

Members of a charitable group known as “Angel Flight,” which conducted airlift flights for ill patients unable to afford air transportation 

or whose medical condition made urgent air transportation necessary, 

traveled with the medical team. They were invited by Latvia’s Minister 

of Health to a pediatric medical conference in Riga, and later visited a 

hospital and rehabilitation center in the city of Jurmala. Their compassionate and persistent efforts helped seriously ill patients receive lifesaving treatments that otherwise would have been unavailable to them.2

This provided a glimpse of the significant humanitarian contributions 

that the SPP would make possible in dozens of other countries around 

the world. 
8 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Lt. Gen. John B. Conaway: 

“Father” of the SPP

John B. Conaway, a native 

of Kentucky, was only the 

second Air National Guard 

general officer to ascend to 

the position of Chief, National 

Guard Bureau. He succeeded 

Lt. Gen. Herbert Temple Jr. 

as Chief in January 1990, just 

weeks after the Berlin Wall 

fell, setting in motion one of 

the most startling transformations in modern world history. 

That event would dramatically affect his tenure as chief.

Conaway knew that the United States’ large defense 

commitment to Europe would shrink after the reunification 

of Germany and the collapse of Communism in the Eastern 

bloc countries. Recognizing that the National Guard’s 

relevance depended upon keeping a posture overseas as 

well as domestically, Conaway saw the potential for the 

citizen-soldier and airmen to be goodwill ambassadors to 

the nations of Central and Eastern Europe while materially 

contributing to the ongoing work of solidifying the fragile 

emerging democracies.

Conaway rose through the ranks from his ROTC commission 

as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Air Force in 1956, and 

served on active duty in the late 1960s. He later made his 

way to the National Guard Bureau in Washington, D.C., 

where he was named deputy director of the Air National 

Guard in 1977. In 1990, he was named chief.

During Conaway’s tenure, he initiated many programs that 

underscore the role of the citizen-soldier and airmen in 

American society, including the Youth Challenge Program 

to address at-risk adolescents. Since his retirement in 1993, 

Conaway has continued to work as a tireless advocate for 

the National Guard.

Conaway’s legacy is his strong leadership, vision, and 

encouragement of innovation to his staff and subordinates. 

This management approach directly led to the creation of 

the SPP.

(National Guard Bureau photo)

As the visit continued to Estonia and Lithuania, it was clear that Baltic 

officials, both civilian and military, were interested and eager to participate in expanded contacts. The initial emphasis of the visit, establishing military-to-military contacts, was well-received by the Ministers of 

Defence in all three countries. Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania readily 

promised to provide the necessary support for liaison and contact team 

operations. Through their consultation with the NGB-led delegation, 

the Baltic nations identified their initial needs: to better equip their 

soldiers and to upgrade the overall quality of training.21

Upon returning to the United States, Conaway made the CJCS aware of 

the success of the trip and of the potential it brought for the engagement 

of the National Guard as an essential element of emerging U.S. outreach 

to the nations of the former Soviet Union.22 In December 1992, the JCS 

Interagency Working Group (IWG) granted approval for the SPP to 

move ahead.23

USEUCOM and other agencies were on board and eager to work with 

the National Guard. Conaway also received positive feedback via a 

memorandum from Gen. Powell stating, “I know the Guard’s support 

will continue to be the key to the successful accomplishment of the 

mission. Keep up the good work!”24

An NGB information paper released November 4, 1992 recognized 

support of USEUCOM’s “Baltic Initiative.” USEUCOM’s recognition 

of NGB’s role signaled to DOD military planners that engaging with 

ABOVE: Front row, left to right: Col. Vance Renfroe, Brig. Gen. Tom 

Lennon, Lt. Gen. Conaway, and U.S. Ambassador to Latvia, Hon. Ints M. 

Silins; back row, Col. Wayne Gosnell at a conference session, November 

1992. (Courtesy retired Col. Max Alston)
CHAPTER I: BEGINNINGS OF THE STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM 

new democracies in Europe about the roles and missions of the United 

States’ National Guard in support of civil authorities would continue on 

a permanent basis. This included follow-on assistance, beginning with 

advisory and assessment teams of five to 10 guardsmen to the Baltic 

countries in early 1993 and assisting the Ministries of Defence with each 

nation’s specific needs.25

A second measure proposed in the NGB paper advocated for the establishment of “partnership state” relationships between the Baltic nations 

and the National Guards of single U.S. states. Those named as potentia

partners were Latvia-Michigan, Lithuania-Pennsylvania, and EstoniaNew Jersey. New York was also placed under consideration as partner 

with Estonia by March 1993.26 Later, Maryland became state partners 

with Estonia in part because of the sizable Estonian community in the 

Baltimore area and the willingness of the Maryland National Guard to 

work closely with the Estonian military. ✦

National Guard International Engagement – Early Precedents Set

Prior to the establishment of security cooperation engagements in the Baltics, the National Guard conducted some 

humanitarian assistance missions in the European theater. 

One example took place in December 1988, after a 

devastating earthquake in the Soviet Republic of Armenia 

to which the United Nations later 

attributed about 25,000 deaths and 

15,000 injuries. 

The 172nd Military Airlift Group 

(MAG) from the Mississippi Air 

National Guard diverted from its 

flying mission to Spain to Incirlik 

Air Base, Turkey, where it picked 

up nearly 70,000 pounds of relief 

supplies for delivery to Armenia. 

The ANG flew doctors, rescue workers, and interpreters to Armenia to 

assist the local population.*

This kind of international operation ignored past political strains 

between East and West. It sought 

only to bring help to those thousands of survivors without shelter. 

The spirit of these actions promoted 

goodwill between Armenia and its 

neighbors and the United States 

that was remembered years later following the collapse of the 

Soviet Union. That attitude of cooperation between East and 

West came to shape what would become the SPP. (Courtesy 

George Mason University, Center for History and New Media, 

Fairfax, VA). 

ABOVE: Damage from earthquake that shook Armenia on December 7, 1988. From “Disaster in 

Armenia, 1988,” Making the History of 1989, Item #172, http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/items/show/172 

(accessed October 18, 2013, 9:40 am).
10 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ENDNOTES

1 Schedule, “Administrative Instructions,” November 5, 1992; from 

project notes regarding the SPP compiled by retired Col. Max Alston. 

These notes also contained several other documents cited throughout 

this work, which are each listed separately.

2 Personal interview, Dr. John Finney, DOD, Washington, D.C., March 6, 

2012; “George Kennan Dies at 101: Leading Strategist of the Cold War,” 

New York Times, March 18, 2005; accessed online, http://www.nytimes.

com/2005/03/18/politics/18kennan.html?pagewanted=all&position, 

March 11, 2012.

3 Information paper, Phil Roundtree. “The North Atlantic Cooperation 

Council,” March 1992.

4 Letter, Lt. Gen. John B. Conaway to Gen. Colin L. Powell, 

January 2, 1992.

5 Minuteman Institute for National Defense Studies, “Biography: Audrey 

Vance Renfroe”, http://www.minutemaninstitute.org/biographies/

VANCERENFROE.html; website accessed, March 13, 2012; notes, State 

Partnership Program, retired Cols. Max Alston and Wayne Gosnell, 2011.

6 Memorandum, Col. Wayne Gosnell to Maj. Gen. William Navas, 

“Campaign Plan for Securing National Guard Involvement in the Former 

Soviet Union, the Baltic Republic and/or Nations of the Former Warsaw 

Pact – STRAWMAN, January 9, 1992. The “STRAWMAN” memorandum is 

one that does not account for troop counts or other projected expenses; 

it only provides a framework for action if or when greater responsibility 

is given to the project.

7 Ibid, January 9, 1992.

8 Office of the Chief, National Guard Bureau, “Military to Military 

Bilateral Cooperation,” briefing given to National Guard Bureau Senior 

Leadership (internal slide presentation), February 18, 1992.

9 Ibid.; Interview, retired Lt. Gen. John B. Conaway, retired Col. Vance 

Renfroe, retired Col. Wayne Gosnell, and retired Col. Max Alston, Arlington Va., February 16, 2011.

10 Statement, SecDef Dick Cheney to defense ministers with cooperation partners, NATO headquarters, Brussels, April 1, 1992. Cheney’s 

speech was also cited by retired Lt. Gen. Conaway, and Cols. Gosnell, 

Renfroe and Alston in their interview as being instrumental as a call to 

action.

11 Ibid.

12 Memorandum, Col. Wayne Gosnell, National Guard Bureau to Max 

Alston, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Security Policy, 

“National Guard Information for Visit to Latvia,” July 9, 1992.

13 National Guard Bureau International Affairs, briefing, “State Partnership Program: Aligning to Today’s Environment,” February 2010; 

Congressional Research Service, “The National Guard State Partnership 

Program,” draft copy, submitted to the National Guard Bureau Legislative Liaison, 19 August 2010. The proposed Belarus partnership was the 

only one that did not continue at this juncture. At this writing, Belarus 

has not initiated any subsequent proposal to join the SPP as of 1999, 

according to a 2002 NGB International Affairs report.

14 Belarus and the Utah National Guard were matched in a partnership 

relationship effective August 18, 1993, as referenced in a memorandum 

dated September 3, 1993. The military-to-military contact program did 

not carry through as did the others that were established at the time in 

1993, so Belarus left the SPP. 

15 Linda D. Kozaryn, “Joint Combat Teams Reach Out to East,” 

American Forces Press Center, April 13, 1998, accessed online, http://

www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=41572, June 8, 2012.

16 U.S. European Command, “History of USEUCOM,” accessed online, 

http://www.eucom.mil/mission/background/history-of-eucom, 

June 8, 2012.

17 Congressional Record, House of Representatives, House Bill 8998, 

November 9, 1993.

18 National Guard Bureau concept paper, “Draft U.S. National Guard – 

Latvian Home Guard Cooperation Program,” September 14, 1992.

19 Ibid.; 221; Point Paper, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, 

Joint Staff Information Service Center, “Country Clearance Request: 

United Kingdom, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia,” November 15–22, 1992, 

approved November 14, 1992 per annotation, Tab 1, 1, listing persons with 

the Conaway delegation. Coincidentally, the lead pilot for the Latvia trip 

was then-Col. David Wherley, USAF, who would become the TAG for the 

District of Columbia from 2004 to 2008. 

20 Interview, retired Col. Max Alston, February 16, 2011.

21 Memorandum, “CNGB Trip to Baltics, November 15–22, 1992,” Tiiu 

Kera, USAF, DATT-Designate, Lithuania to Col. Frank Van Fleet, NGB, 

November 23,1992; memorandum, CNGB to the CJCS, “Visit to Latvia, 

Estonia, and Lithuania, 17–21 November 1993 – Trip Report,” 

December 2, 1992.

22 Memorandum, CNGB Lt. Gen. John A. Conaway to CJCS Gen. Colin 

L. Powell, “Visit to Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania: 17-21 November 1992 

–Trip Report.” Latvia, November 17–18, p. 16.

23 NGB International Initiatives Group slide presentation, “U.S. National 

Guard Support of USEUCOM’s Military-to-Military Contacts in the Baltic 

States,” March 25, 1993.

24 Memorandum, CNGB Lt. Gen. John A. Conaway, to CJCS Gen. Colin 

L. Powell, “Visit to Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania: 17-21 November 1992 

–Trip Report. Latvia, 17-18 November,” p.16.

25 NGB International Initiatives Group information paper, “National 

Guard Support of USEUCOM’s Baltic Initiative,” November 4, 1992.

26 Ibid.; NGB International Initiatives Group slide presentation, “U.S. 

National Guard Support of USEUCOM’s Military-to-Military Contacts in 

the Baltic States,” March 25, 1993.
CHAPTER 2

ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASI
12 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

THE NATIONAL GUARD ROLE IN DEFENSE 

STRATEGY 

I

n early 1993, President George H.W. Bush released the National 

Security Strategy (NSS), which outlined a leadership role for the 

United States in supporting global security. It highlighted a broad 

range of security challenges for the United States and its friends 

and allies.

The section of the NSS titled “How We Can Lead in Collective Engagement in the Near Term” forecasted the conduct of military-to-military 

exchanges with allied and friendly nations. The NSS cited the need for 

a “forward presence” outside of the United States through “combined 

exercises, new access and storage agreements, security and humanitarian assistance, port visits, military-military contacts, and periodic and 

rotational deployments.”1

 This guidance provided the policy rationale 

for the DOD’s security cooperation initiatives through USEUCOM, 

such as the SPP, to reach out to the newly independent nations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia to assist with the transformation of their 

defense and military structures.

Key in the new strategy was the need for bilateral development assistance to support the economic progress of newly emerging countries. 

The NSS recognized that, like the assistance given to Germany and 

Japan after World War II, the United States should engage with the 

former Communist nations to overcome the ravages of central planning 

and excessive state control.2

 This approach revealed foresight in identifying the need to expand post-Soviet contacts through a “whole of society” 

approach in addressing issues beyond military-to-military engagement. 

The relationships developed through the SPP could be leveraged later to 

allow other agencies, both governmental and nongovernmental, to use 

their own resources to develop activities addressing other societal needs. 

EARLY DEVELOPMENT

Before the delegation’s trip to the Baltic states, NGB proposed a 

“sustaining partnerships” model, essentially laying the groundwork 

for the SPP’s structure.3

 The success of Lt. Gen. Conaway’s trip to the 

region reinforced the viability of forming such a program. Given this 

situation, the JCS IWG granted final approval on January 27, 1993 for 

the program to continue.4

However, before the proposal could proceed, the DOD had to confirm 

National Guard authority to participate in military-to-military engagement activities with foreign countries, traditionally an active component 

mission. Moreover, USEUCOM Cmdr. Gen. John Shalikashvili wanted 

to ensure that his Russian counterparts were briefed. By March 1993, 

Shalikashvili had completed consultations within NATO and USEUCOM and given the green light for the SPP to proceed within his area 

of responsibility.

The basic management structure for the SPP consisted of DOD policy 

oversight of the program as part of USEUCOM’s theater security cooperation strategy. Exchanges were to be conducted in coordination with 

the U.S. ambassador in the partner country. 

THE FIRST EUROPEAN STATE 

PARTNERSHIPS

Having established a foundation of success through strategic planning 

and face-to-face contact with the leadership of potential partner nations, 

Conaway, in coordination with USEUCOM, approved the first three 

state partnerships on April 27, 1993.5

 These partnerships were certified 

between Latvia and Michigan; Lithuania and Pennsylvania; and Estonia 

and Maryland. The SPP would play an important role in assisting the 

transition of Baltic militaries to a new position under democratic rule. 

These military engagements strengthened the capabilities of the local 

military forces, demonstrated the importance of civilian control of the 

military, and laid the foundation for closer cooperation and interoperability with U.S. and NATO forces. 

State Partnership Program Beginnings, 199

STATE-COUNTRY PARTNERSHIP ESTABLISHE

Maryland – Estonia April 27, 1993

Michigan - Latvia April 27, 1993

Pennsylvania – Lithuania April 27, 1993

Alabama – Romania July 14, 1993

Colorado – Slovenia July 14, 1993

Illinois – Poland July 14, 1993

Indiana – Slovakia July 14, 1993

Tennessee – Bulgaria July 14, 1993

Ohio – Hungary July 14, 1993

Texas/Nebraska – Czech Republic July 14, 1993

South Carolina – Albania* July 14, 1993 

Vermont – Macedonia July 14, 1993

Arizona – Kazakhstan August 31, 1993

California – Ukraine August 31, 1993

Utah – Belarus* September 3, 1993

*Later became inactive due to internal political considerations

within partner countries
CHAPTER 2: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 1

through their state partnerships, these 

countries could make significant and 

rapid progress in addressing their serious 

regional challenges.

Within three months of the first countries 

initiating the program, nine additional 

partnerships came to the fore on July 14, 

1993. These pairings were Nebraska and 

Texas with the Czech Republic; Ohio 

with Hungary; Vermont with Macedonia; 

Tennessee with Bulgaria; Alabama with Romania; Illinois with Poland; 

Indiana with Slovakia; and Colorado with Slovenia.6

 USEUCOM also 

gained additional coverage in the region when Utah partnered with 

Belarus and South Carolina paired with Albania, although these 

partnerships dissolved after a few years due to internal political 

considerations in both Eastern European nations.

On August 26, 1993, the NGB Office of International Initiatives 

(NGB-ZII; later the NGB-IA) produced a concept paper that outlined 

the National Guard’s support of military-to-military contacts with partner countries.7

 In October 1993, a point paper first suggested the term 

“state partnerships.” Working in tandem, Cols. Gosnell and Renfroe 

proposed that the National Guard of selected states develop a working relationship with the Ministries of Defence of former Soviet bloc 

countries that would “encourage long-term institutional and people-topeople linkages and cement sustained relationships.”8

RIGHT: Immediately following the Establish 

Defense exercise, Pennsylvania National 

Guard platoon leader 2nd Lt. Joseph Dillon 

discusses the recent action with the Lithuanian company commander June 4. As 

part of Saber Strike 2013 that took place in 

Adazi, Latvia, Guardsmen partnered with 

a Lithuanian Army company in a series of 

infantry training exercises. (Pennsylvania 

National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Tom 

Bourke/released)

LEFT: Col. Troy Phillips of Philo, Illinois and 

fellow Bilateral Embedded Support Team 

A9 soldiers present the Illinois state flag to 

their Polish counterpart, Brig. Gen. Bogdan 

Tworkowski, Feb. 17, 2012, in Wedryzn, 

Poland. (Courtesy Illinois National Guard)

The SPP relationships got underway in earnest when the Pennsylvania 

National Guard hosted a multinational conference for Latvia, Estonia, 

Lithuania and Belarus in September 1993 in Hershey, Pa. This 

civil-emergency planning conference brought together by Col. Alston 

focused on issues specific to the three Baltic nations and Belarus, such a

old and deteriorating power plants that posed great risks to the citizens 

of each country.

The conference in Hershey opened doors to military-to-civilian 

cooperation in dealing with disaster planning. It demonstrated how 

militaries can work effectively with civilian first responders to help 

protect citizens.9

 Making military service and law enforcement honorable occupations was one of the overarching objectives that the SPP’s 

founders sought to ensure.10 It was clear to the Baltic republics and 

Belarus that a serious dialogue could contribute to the accomplishment 

of the development goals of their countries. It was equally clear that 
ABOVE: SPP establishment process (adapted from NGB International Affairs brief, 2009)

14 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

PARTNERSHIP FOCUS: HOST COUNTRY 

MINISTRIES OF DEFENCE 

The SPP began, and has continued, as an innovative DOD security 

cooperation program conducted through the CCMDs, matching a 

National Guard state/territory organization with a partner country’s 

military or equivalent constabulary.11 It was designed to strengthen 

defense relationships with friendly and allied nations and to share 

responsibilities for promoting peace and security. The SPP has fostered 

interoperability between U.S. and partner country forces, exchanges of 

lessons learned and best practices, and long-term enduring relationships 

between National Guard soldiers and airmen and their partner country 

counterparts. The cooperation built between the Ministries of Defence 

(MOD) in partner countries and the National Guard have cultivated 

better relationships at all levels of society due to the enduring professional and personal ties formed

From the beginning, the SPP 

has been a low-cost, small 

footprint program, yet one 

of high impact designed to 

deliver enduring results. It is 

a proven security cooperation 

tool, unique in its capitalization of the National Guard’s 

citizen-soldier experience and 

broad military-civilian skills. 

SPP core activities consist 

of various planned security 

engagements conducted over 

the course of a year. The 

first group exchanges are 

typically senior leader visits, 

which allow the TAGs to visit 

foreign countries partnered 

with their states or territories, 

and for chiefs of defence 

(CHODs) in the partner 

countries to visit their respective partner National Guard 

state or territory.

Each year, the state and partner country typically conduct 

five to six subject matter 

expert exchanges (SMEEs) 

 during exchanges.

and small unit exchanges. These events focus on areas of mutual interest, 

such as NCO development, aviation safety and maintenance, force planning, contingency planning, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 

disaster response, crisis management, border security, and humanitarian 

relief. Activities take place in both the state and the partner country and 

typically involve three to five U.S. participants per event, although on 

occasion significantly larger numbers are involved.

SPP APPLICATION PROCESS

A prospective partner country’s MOD initiates the request for a state 

partnership through the U.S. ambassador. If endorsed by the ambassador, the request is then routed to the DOD Geographic Combatant 

Commander (CCDR). The CCDR approves the request and asks the 

CNGB to nominate a National Guard state partner. The CNGB invites 

the National Guard TAGs from all 54 U.S. states and territories to 
CHAPTER 2: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 1

indicate whether they are interested in partnering with the nation 

in question. After careful review based on established criteria that 

emphasizes stable internal security, the CNGB nominates a National 

Guard state or territory to the CCDR for approval. The CCDR in 

turn forwards the nomination to the U.S. ambassador for his or her 

endorsement and coordination with the partner country MOD in 

preparation for a final agreement. An official announcement of the SPP 

is then made, usually on the occasion of an official visit by the National 

Guard state partner leadership to the new partner country, or through 

partner defense and military leadership visit to the National Guard state 

or territory. For many partner nations, the establishment of an official 

partnership with a U.S. state is a highly significant event.12

BRIDGE TO AMERICA ... AND OTHER 

COUNTRIES

The “bridge to America” concept allowed people from partner countries 

the opportunity to visit the United States and view life from a military 

and civilian viewpoint. In the process, participants intensively learned 

about the host country’s culture and traditions, while visiting places that 

otherwise would be impossible to see.13 This expression was used 

ABOVE: Logo of the early SPP. This was from the publication, “National 

Guard State Partnership Program: Real People, Real Success,” released 

in September 1994. Note the “Partners for Peace” designation; this was 

also the same year that NATO initiated the “Partnership for Peace” initiative, which was not the same program as the SPP, but with many of the 

same goals for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. (Courtesy 

National Guard Bureau, Office of International Initiatives)

ABOVE: South Carolina National Guard at work in Albania, 1995. 

(Courtesy National Guard Bureau, Office of International Initiatives)

extensively as a way to promote the SPP in the 1990s as the program 

grew. The concept was outlined as early as March 1993 to provide 

“a gateway of opportunity for grassroots Americans to become directly 

involved in assisting the citizens of the Baltics in their transition to free 

and democratic societies.”14 The concept also sought to address strategic 

concerns in Central and Eastern Europe.15

The process was described by then-Lt. Col. Michael Dubie in his assess

ment of SPP when he stated, “It is often the informal contact between 

American citizen-soldiers and members of the armed forces of the host 

nations that help build trust and mutual respect between the partners. 

It is therefore critical that National Guard members be prepared to 

operate in these foreign cultures.”16 Dubie was recognized as one of the 

SPP’s leading proponents. Many general officers in the USA worked 

closely with the SPP, and these leaders have seen the program fulfill its 

original promise of enduring partnerships and true mutual assistance 

between the states and the foreign countries with whom they are paired

After Dubie wrote about this quality, he was later promoted to TAG of 

the Vermont National Guard and at this writing, serves as deputy commander of the U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM). 
16 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ABOVE: Map of proposed participating states and partner countries, c. 1993. Note the “Bridge to America” slogan used; this term, from the perspective 

of the partner nations, captured the essence of the program, particularly in its early years as they developed relationships with their partner states. 

With most of these countries being smaller than the United States, it was easier to relate with individual states to “build a bridge” between two sovereign nations. (Courtesy National Guard Bureau, Office of International Initiatives)

Partnership States 

“Bridge to America”

NATO CHANGES AND THE PARTNERSHIP 

FOR PEACE

President William J. Clinton released his NSS in July 1994, setting 

forth U.S. goals for support of future NATO expansion in Central and 

Eastern Europe. The NATO alliance had stayed intact for nearly 50 

years with a history of steadfast resolve and mutual cooperation based 

on capable military forces and inspired political leadership. 

NATO forces regularly trained and operated together during the Cold 

War. NATO conducted its first out-of-area operations in Bosnia and 

Herzegovina after the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1994, and later in 

Kosovo in 1999.17 In the decade before the Cold War ended, USEUCOM had more than 350,000 troops in Europe at any one time. By 

1992, troop levels had fallen by nearly two-thirds.18 The 1993 NSS 

written by President Bush had offered glimpses into ways the United 

States might employ its military in the future. The NSS proposed by 

Clinton in 1994 offered a more restrained strategy for the decade ahead, 

emphasizing the notion of partnerships as best serving the national security interests of the United States. The SPP was thus well-positioned to 

expand on the established tradition of military-to-military cooperation 

among NATO allies to now include the newly independent democracies 

of the post-Cold War world. 

Working in parallel with the SPP and within the policy framework 

of NATO was the Partnership for Peace (PfP). NATO established 

this entity in 1994 to prepare new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe with an initial focus on Poland, Hungary and the Czech 

Republic.19 Established in 1994, the year after the SPP was launched, 

PfP was described as a new method of dialogue between NATO and 

new partners from the former Soviet bloc. It quickly became a program 

of bilateral cooperation intended to “bind former Communist states 

to the rest of Europe.”20 The leaders of the countries from the former 

Soviet bloc used the PfP to train their militaries on how to incorporate 

civilian command and to ensure that standards of democratic rule would 

be followed under the requirements of NATO membership. Twentyone nations joined the program, including Russia. PfP and the SPP are 

sometimes confused with each other because they share similar goals. 

PfP is a NATO-specific program to help newly emerging countries 

prepare for entry to NATO. The SPP is a NGB and CCMD-funded 

program to support U.S. security cooperation engagement with partner 
CHAPTER 2: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 1

country militaries, including their modernization and professionalization, which also enhances their ability to meet NATO standards. 

PEACEKEEPING DUTY

A goal of the 1994 Clinton NSS was for U.S. forces to conduct peacekeeping operations in an effort to resolve or prevent conflicts. While the 

airlift, intelligence and communications capabilities necessary for these 

duties were well provisioned, the notion of National Guard soldiers and 

airmen being involved in such operations seemed beyond the capabilities of part-time soldiers and airmen. However, despite this misperception, civilian skills cultivated by citizen-soldiers and airmen translated 

into success throughout peacekeeping duties in Bosnia and Herzegovina, 

and Kosovo during the 1990s and in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula after 2001. 

Guard skills during peacekeeping assignments in remote sections of the 

world demonstrated the experience and poise of National Guard men 

and women in solving problems and promoting progress in challenging 

and tense areas of the world.21

The evolution into peacekeeping for the National Guard has progressed. 

Joint peacekeeping missions in Central Asia were facilitated through 

the presence of SPPs in the region, a fact that laid the groundwork for 

broader cooperation between the DOD and those nations when the 

U.S. went to war with Afghanistan in late 2001. Presently, the partnership model serves allied readiness needs and eases the stress of unilateral 

peacekeeping in administering present and future peacekeeping tours. 

The DOD, in order to assist the United Nations Peacekeeping Force 

in Cyprus (UNFICYP), first engaged the SPP in September 2010. This 

model of peacekeeping force using state partners took place when the 

Ohio National Guard undertook peacekeeping duties on Cyprus, along 

with soldiers from their counterparts in the nations of Hungary and 

Serbia.22 Because of the SPP, the United States can count on reliable 

partners for future contingency operations.

THE MARSHALL LEGACY SYMPOSIUM

An early milestone for the SPP was the Marshall Legacy Symposium, 

conducted with George Washington University in Washington, D.C. 

in January 1996. It preceded the 50th anniversary of the Marshall Plan 

in 1997. The Marshall Plan transformed relations between the United 

eds for 

 region 

States and Western Europe after World War II, and sowed the se

future mutually beneficial relationships with the countries of the

to flourish. 

The Symposium was conducted at a critical juncture for the SPP. 

Col. Renfroe decided that, “the beginning of 1996 would be the right 

“... we must support cooperative 

efforts and mentoring programs 

with these countries to help ensur

the success of democratic reform

– PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINT

time to bring all of the major [SPP] participants together for in-depth 

discussions about progress to date and future directions of [the] 

program ...”23 Its timing coincided with the continuation of the siege o

Sarajevo and the last days of the ethnic conflict in Bosnia and Herzegov

ina. These events had threatened to undermine the recent independenc

of the former Yugoslavian republics and cast a pall over Eastern Europe

The SPP relationships in the Baltics and Central and Eastern Europe 

had begun well. President Clinton, in a letter read during presentations 

at the Marshall Symposium, further underscored the importance of 

partnerships when he said: 

... We must support cooperative efforts and mentoring programs with 

these countries to help ensure the success of democratic reform. Form

ing partnerships with many of the newly independent countries of 

Europe, U.S. states have become leaders in this concept. The United 

States is reaching out through the Partnership for Peace and the 

National Guard State Partnership Program to help shape democrati

institutions where totalitarianism once ruled.24

Clinton’s remarks resonated at this time. Prior to this event, during 

Operation Joint Endeavor in Bosnia and Herzegovina that started in lat

1995, countries that were involved with the SPP program lent assistanc

to NATO. This spirit of cooperation also influenced those at NATO 

when the first former Soviet bloc nations were under consideration for 

admission to the alliance.25

OPERATIONAL SUPPORT, FORMING 

STRONG MUTUAL ASSOCIATIONS

CNGB Lt. Gen. Conaway’s leadership led to formalizing the SPP and 

improving the focus of its mission.26 However, this new program was 

challenged during its inception, as the U.S. Congress was eager to scale 

back military expenditures with the end of the Cold War, including 

military-to-military contact. 
f 

(

ABOVE: Gen. John Shalikashvili, 

SACEUR and later CJCS. 

Courtesy DOD).

ABOVE: More than 150 Moldovan children from orphanages in Straseni 

and Laloveni and from the School for Hearing Impaired Children were 

treated by a team of American military dentists from the North Carolina 

National Guard. After their check-ups, each child received a tube of 

toothpaste and a new toothbrush. USEUCOM provided funds for all 

necessary equipment and supplies. (Courtesy USEUCOM, via U.S. 

Embassy Moldova)

18 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

However, Gen. Shalikashvili understood the significance of these 

military-to-military exchanges. He wrote a strongly worded letter to 

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn of Georgia, 

urging him to ensure that the JCTP and SPP funding for 1994 would 

remain, because the program was: 

... the most visible U.S. initiative of any NATO nation. It is a success 

story of the post-Cold War – a new Marshall Plan – this time investing intellectual resources rather than large-scale material resources. As 

a direct result of our Military Liaison Team presence, several Central/

Eastern Europe countries are moving to ensure the human rights of 

their military personnel by instituting a military legal code based on 

our Uniform Code of Military Justice, instituting or reviving chaplain corps, and developing NCO corps ... without FY 94 funding, 

we eventually will be forced to pull our teams out of ten countries, 

which would be a major embarrassment for the United States and 

damage our credibility. Our commitment to democracy and progress 

in Europe would be greatly undermined and slow the integration of 

our former adversaries into mainstream democratic societies.27

Shalikashvili, who grew up in “stateless” Eastern Europe as the son of 

refugees amidst the instability after World War II, had seen firsthand 

the benefits of aid such as the Marshall Plan. At his request, $10 million 

was budgeted for Fiscal Year 1994 to the JCTP and SPP, which allowed 

them to function as originally intended.28

USA Lt. Gen. Edward Baca was a strong advocate for the SPP when 

he took over as CNGB, succeeding Conaway in October 1994. Baca 

wanted to increase the National Guard’s international presence, and 

viewed the SPP as a primary means to achieve this goal. Baca emphasized 

including countries in the U.S. Southern Command (USSOUTHCOM) 

area of responsibility to be candidates for the SPP. He successfully 

accomplished this in his tenure, as the Guard added six partnerships in 

the USSOUTHCOM command. Baca gave great credit to his support 

staff at NGB. He explained why he believed the SPP was such a worthy 

program during his tenure as CNGB, stating that, “The entire State 

Partnership Program also has great success because of the interconnectivity 

and comprehensive links that it provides for national security. The depth 

of the citizen-soldier provides the most strength to the program through 

personal relationships and enduring contact established with the duality 

of the partnerships.”29

In the SPP’s early years in Europe, shared cultural and economic characteristics were the most common factors used to form partnerships. 

This proved true as California partnered with Ukraine, both of which 

managed large agricultural production land areas. At the same time, 

Illinois partnered with Poland because of the large Polish population 

in Chicago, second only to Warsaw in the entire world. Ohio was partnered with Hungary primarily 

because of the large population o

Hungarian descendants located 

in the Cleveland area. Selection 

for partnerships evolved into 

a comprehensive, analytical 

process based on inputs and data 

provided not only by applicant 

states and territories, but from 

the CCMD, U.S. embassies, 

regional security institutes, and 

others. Beyond such shared criteria as topography, demographics 

and economics, a broad range of 

desired capabilities such as those 

involving disaster response, search and rescue, border, port, and aviation 

defense and security are also considered and evaluated. 

Other partnerships emerged as USA Gen. George Joulwan, the supreme 

commander of USEUCOM, who succeeded Cmdr. Gen. Shalikashvili, 

gave continued support to the SPP when he asked the National Guard 

to participate in a new partnership with Georgia. The country of Georgia 

was partnered with the state of Georgia in 1994. What may at first 

appear to be a frivolous partnering based on similarity of names was, in 

fact, based on the solid sister city relationship in place for many years 
CHAPTER 2: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 1

LEFT: USAF Maj. Martha Alspaugh, left, 

and Lt. Col. Jane Elkovich, both flight 

nurses assigned to the 156th Aeromedica

Evacuation Squadron, North Carolina Air 

National Guard, prepare dummies before 

loading them into an aircraft in Charlotte, 

N.C., July 29, 2010, for a check ride. The 

airmen hosted Moldovan military medical 

officers while sharing the North Carolina 

National Guard’s medical evacuation 

techniques. (Courtesy DOD by USAF Tech

Sgt. Brian E. Christiansen/Released) 

between the Georgian city of Tblisi and the city of Atlanta, Georgia in 

the United States. The two entities found common ground, and worked 

together on needed projects such as rebuilding an orphanage in Tblisi, 

after the facility had been damaged in the 1993 Georgian civil war. 

The Georgia National Guard’s 878th Engineer Battalion performed 

plumbing, carpentry, masonry and electrical repairs to this facility using 

three, 21-day rotations.30 Additional partnerships were initiated in 1996, 

including Minnesota-Croatia, Montana-Kyrgyzstan, Nevada-Turkmenistan, and North Carolina-Moldova. 

In addition to the first partnerships in the USEUCOM combatant 

command region, other agreements were brought into the fold in the 

2000s. New Jersey paired with Albania in 2000, after South Carolina’s 

partnership came to a close. In Eurasia, Azerbaijan signed a partnership 

pact with Oklahoma, and Armenia with Kansas in 2002. In the Balkan 

region, Bosnia and Herzegovina paired with Maryland in 2003; Serbia 

with Ohio in 2005; Maine with Montenegro in 2006; and Iowa with 

Kosovo in 2011.

Visits from National Guard leadership to Central and Eastern Europe 

continued when Baca visited Estonia in 1996. During this visit, Maryland’s TAG, USA Maj. Gen. James Fretterd, emphasized for Estonians 

the National Guard as a professional military force of citizen-soldiers 

from a variety of civilian occupations.31 This rapid change from a military force sourced from the USSR just more than five years earlier, into 

one representative of the Estonian population, underscored the impact 

of the SPP.

The National Guard’s success with the SPP fit well with the policies 

advocated by William Perry, the SecDef during the first Clinton administration. Perry, in an address to the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in May 1996, stated that the United States 

should use three methods of national defense: preventive, deterrence, 

and military. The National Guard and the SPP fell within the realm of 

preventive defense, successfully implementing bilateral security coopera

tion to minimize the risk of conflict and misunderstanding between the 

United States and partner nations.32 This reduced the likelihood of usin

methods of deterrence or escalating military budgets through higher 

preparedness measures.

As the 1990s drew to a close, Baca looked back on the expansion of 

the SPP as one of his greatest accomplishments as CNGB. One of the 

original goals of the SPP was to move as quickly as possible from the 

military-to-military realm to the civilian-to-civilian realm. This was a 

ABOVE: Sgt. 1st Class Travis Eichhorn, a Pittsburg, Kan. native and 

combat engineer with the Kansas National Guard, partners with a 

soldier from the Engineering Companies of the Armenian Peacekeeping 

Brigade during a simulated one-man demining drill as part of a training 

course taught by soldiers of the Kansas National Guard and a civilian 

representative from the U.S. Humanitarian Demining Training Center. 

Kansas National guardsmen and the HDTC representative are instructin

Armenian peacekeepers and engineer battalions on international 

demining standards as part of the Humanitarian Mine Action program 

and will assist the Armenian government in developing a national 

standard operating procedure for demining. (Courtesy Petty Officer 2nd 

Class Patrick Grieco)
20 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

LEFT: Sgt. Winston 

Obermuller (top center) 

and Staff Sgt. Ann Olson 

(bottom right) show a 

Tajik Army officer how 

U.S. personnel maintain 

and operate a sensitive 

piece of detection 

equipment that was 

provided to the Tajiks 

by the United States. 

(Courtesy Virginia 

National Guard SPP) 

ABOVE: Staff Sgt. Ellen Billmyer, Virginia Army National Guard, teaches 

Republic House children in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, how to properly brush 

their teeth using a toothbrush and toothpaste donated by a church in 

her community. (Courtesy Maj. Neal Edmonds, Virginia National Guard 

SPP coordinator)

great advantage of the SPP being a National Guard program, with its 

basis being the citizen-soldier and airmen. This evolution took hold during 

Baca’s tenure, as 12 partner countries joined the program, increasing the 

number of partnerships to 33. Baca noted: 

... the fact now is that many of these countries are NATO allies; 

most of those countries succeeded, and are doing well. Not only did 

we partner the National Guard and the military-military relationship, but the partnership became a state-state [relationship], completely. The governors got involved with them. For example, Estonia 

was partnered with Maryland. They met with Governor [Parris] 

Glendening, he offered them the services of Johns Hopkins University 

and the University of Maryland Medical School; in addition to that, 

they worked in every other area, civilian as well as military, in helping them rebuild their country, and their medical program. Estonia 

ended up with one of the best medical programs among the Eastern 

bloc nations.33

Former Soviet bloc nations seeking NATO membership found the 

SPP a helpful program to aid them in their bid for membership. One 

example was Hungary, an early partner with the Ohio National Guard 

from 1993. Hungary was among the first former Soviet bloc nations to 

join NATO in 1998. The rise in the professionalism and readiness of the 

Hungarian military establishment that made this possible can be attributed in no small part to the Ohio National Guard’s positive relationship 

with their foreign counterpart and their mutually beneficial security 

cooperation remaining in force.

Because their militaries were modeled on the Soviet archetype, few of 

the partner countries had a professional NCO corps such as that of the 

United States military or most of the NATO allies. This was a deficiency 

because nations with any aspiration of eventually joining NATO needed 

to have a military establishment of NCOs organized, trained and 

equipped to be compatible with Western nations. Having a professional 

NCO corps was a significant part of this kind of military structure. The 

security exchanges with new European militaries under the SPP sparked 

the development of the NCO corps within many partner countries. SPP 

events stressed the critical importance of the NCO corps to ensure that 

discipline, order, and efficiency are carried out in the military ranks. 

This emphasis on NCOs improved the readiness and effectiveness of the 

region’s military units.34

There are other examples 

that demonstrated the value 

of the SPP. Baca’s visit to 

Romania in 1995 revealed 

similar values and ideals held 

by the Romanians. Former 

adversaries were now working 

with the United States in support of security, freedom and 

democracy. Baca observed 

that preconceived notions 

were shattered and that the 

Romanians warmly embraced 

the visiting National Guard 

soldiers and airmen. This 

occurred after the Alabama 

National Guard worked 

to repair a badly damaged orphanage with its partner in Constanta, 

Romania. The Alabama Guard, in coordination with Romanian military 

counterparts, rehabilitated the damaged building, repaired sewer lines, 

and rotated soldiers and airmen through the facility to improve the lot 

“Not only did we 

partner the Nationa

Guard and the 

military-military 

relationship, but 

the partnership 

became a state-sta

[relationship], 

completely.”

– LT. GEN. EDWARD BA
CHAPTER 2: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 2

ABOVE: With help from interpreters, logistical staffs from Kazakhstan, 

Tajikistan and the Kyrgyz Republic learn how the 162nd Fighter Wing, 

Arizona Air National Guard, Tucson Ariz., manages materiel in the 

Davis-Monthan AFB warehouse. (Courtesy Air National Guard by MSgt. 

Dave Neve)

of those living there, many of whom were children with pediatric AIDs. 

Through these combined SPP efforts, they truly made a difference in 

people’s lives.35

Another example of value added for the United States occurred with 

the employment of the SPP by United States Central Command 

(USCENTCOM) in 1993 in former 

Soviet bloc countries in Central Asia. 

The vast former Soviet republic, 

Kazakhstan, requested a National 

Guard state partner and was paired 

with Arizona because of their shared 

desert climates. Kazakhstan’s Committee for Emergency Situations soon 

visited Arizona to explore new ways 

of managing disasters and improving 

emergency management methods. 

Kazakhstan’s strategic importance was 

underscored after September 11, 2001, 

when it provided intelligence and 

overflight rights in support of coalition operations in Afghanistan. The 

Kazakhs also underwent joint military 

training with their Arizona National 

Guard partners and deployed together 

to Afghanistan.36

Funding was important in focusing 

initial activities in Eastern Europe and 

Central Asia. In 1992 Congress had 

authorized funding under the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program 

to dismantle nuclear stockpiles following the breakup of the Soviet 

Union. The program later focused on preventing proliferation of nuclea

weapons and material from former Soviet bloc countries. This line of 

funding served to finance military-to-military exchanges in the region 

and opened a substantive security dialogue between the DOD and 

Central Asian nation defense ministries for the first time.37

Central Asia witnessed further SPP growth as the new countries of 

Kyrgyzstan (now the Kyrgyz Republic), Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan 

applied to USCENTCOM for SPP membership in 1996. After their 

applications were approved, the CNGB and USCENTCOM paired 

these countries with Montana, Nevada and Louisiana, respectively. 

Virginia and Tajikistan soon followed as SPP partners.38 Two of these 

partners had particular situations that made their partnerships with the

states valuable. Tajikistan shares a border with Afghanistan, which share

rugged territory and is a vulnerable site for criminal activity. It also 

endured a civil war in the mid-1990s that put the new nation into a sta

of disarray. The Kyrgyz Republic housed Manas International Airport an

provided a critical supply network for U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

ABOVE: In July 2007, Albania hosted members of the Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 113th Infantry, and 

50th Infantry Brigade Combat Team of the New Jersey Army National Guard for training during Phase I of 

a Unit Level Exchange program. This Unit Level Exchange, the first military exercise of its kind in Albania, 

was requested by the Albanian Armed Forces Joint Forces commander, funded by United States Army 

Europe, organized by the Embassy’s Office of Defense Cooperation and supported by the New Jersey 

Army National Guard. (Photograph by Capt. Jon Powers)
22 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Military professional education is key to success. Such a bond espouses 

the notion of true partnership that seeks to improve processes and 

benefit both sides engaged in important issues for all citizens concerning 

emergency response, education, health and general welfare. Montana 

and the Kyrgyz Republic shared characteristics in being landlocked 

mountainous regions, and both frequently dealt with emergency 

management issues related to natural disasters.39 The Montana delegation visited the Republic in 2008 for an information exchange and 

learned from their Kyrgyk counterparts that emergency response is 

often managed without technology or sophisticated equipment. Given 

the number of natural disasters that the state had recently experienced, 

including earthquakes and mudslides, this might seem to have been a 

major obstacle. 

Still, the Kyrgyz Ministry of Defence coordinated search and rescue 

and disaster planning, so the expertise remained in the hands of those 

authorities trained in dealing with natural catastrophes. Government 

planners also used the model of regional disaster planning as part of 

their overall response, and emulated many features of Montana’s disaster 

plans. In addition, former Kyrgyz military members comprised the 

response that treated natural disasters in the Republic and relied upon 

their past training and structure. This small adaptation of Montana’s 

methods has improved response times in spite of the lack of resources. 

Also, in the days after 9/11, Montana’s partnership with the Kyrgyz 

Republic acquired a crucial strategic importance due to its proximity 

to other Central Asian nations. The program “focuses on building 

A B OV E : Sgt. Daniel Kim (left), Alpha Company, 2nd Battalion, 113th 

Infantry, 50th Infantry Brigade Combat Team, plan strategy with 

two Albanian NCOs during a field training exercise on July 17, 2007. 

(Courtesy New Jersey National Guard Public Affairs Office)

ABOVE: New Jersey Army National Guard Medics distribute 500 doses 

of Hepatitis A vaccine for local children at a small community clinic in 

Zallherr, Republic of Albania, on July 12, 2007. (Photograph by Capt. 

Jon Powers)

ABOVE: Eighteen 108th Air Refueling Wing Security Forces Airmen with 

the New Jersey Air National Guard and 15 508th Military Police Soldiers 

of the New Jersey Army National Guard deployed together from June 7 

to 21, 2009 to Tirana, Albania, where they jointly trained with 130 of their 

counterparts in Albanian Military Police Battalion Unit Number 4002. 

(Photograph by 1st Sgt. Raymond Hoffman)
CHAPTER 2: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 2

relationships with partners, not on merely providing military information in a one-way channel,” said its coordinator, Chief Warrant Officer 

Ernest Bridwell. “All the parties in this endeavor are equal partners.”40

This sort of exchange, typical of those going on between other state 

National Guards and their partners, demonstrates how both the 

Montana National Guard and the Kyrgyz Ministry of Defence have 

shared a mutual issue and learned from the other’s experiences. ✦

ABOVE: Members of the Montenegrin Special Forces participated in a 

tactical capabilities demonstration at the Danilovgrad Training Center in 

Montenegro on December 7, 2006, for National Guard Bureau and Maine 

National Guard leaders. The Maine National Guard and Montenegro 

announced their pairing in the National Guard’s SPP on December 7 in 

Podgorica, Montenegro. (U.S. Army photo by Sgt. Jim Greenhill)

1

f

ABOVE: Master Sgt. Vlad, team sergeant in Company B, 2nd Battalion, 

9th Special Forces Group, Ohio National Guard, discusses with Soldiers 

rom the Republic of Serbia’s 63rd Parachutist Battalion, Special Forces 

Brigade how to use explosives to breach a door at Camp Grayling, Mich

The team conducted demolition training in 2007 as part of an SPP and 

military exchange with Ohio and Serbia. (Photograph by Spc. 

Sam Beavers) 

ABOVE: Members of the Montenegrin Special Forces participated in a tactical capabilities demonstration at the Danilovgrad Training Center in 

Montenegro December 7, 2006, for the NGB and Maine National Guard leaders. (DOD photo by Army Sgt. Jim Greenhill) 
24 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ENDNOTES

1 The White House, National Security Strategy of the United States, 

1993, Washington D.C., January 1993, p. 14.

2 Ibid., 11

3 National Guard Bureau, “Draft U.S. National Guard – Latvian Home 

Guard Cooperation Program,” concept paper, September 14, 1992.

4 National Guard Bureau, International Initiatives Group (NGB-ZII), 

slide presentation, “US National Guard Support of USEUCOM’s Militaryto-Military Contacts in the Baltic States,” March 25, 1993.

5 National Guard Bureau, International Affairs Division (NGB-J5-IA), 

“State Partnership Program: List of States, Partner Countries, Date of 

Partnership Initiation, Combatant Commands and Adjutants General,” 

list received September 30, 2010.

6 Ibid.

7 National Guard Bureau, Office of International Initiatives (NGB-ZII), 

concept paper, “U.S. National Guard Support of Military-to-Military 

Contacts,” August 26, 1993.

8 National Guard Bureau, Office of International Initiatives (NGB-ZII), 

talking paper, “Supporting Emerging Democracies – The Role of the 

National Guard and Reserves,” October 26, 1993.

9 Interview, retired Col. Max Alston, February 16, 2011.

10 Retired Col. Vance Renfroe, “One Sustainable Soft Power Solution: 

The National Guard State Partnership Program,” Common Defense 

Quarterly, fall 2012, pp. 62-65.

11 Partner nations without a dedicated military but maintaining a state 

police force included at that time Costa Rica and Panama, which respectively partner with New Mexico and Missouri.

12 National Guard Bureau, Office of International Initiatives (NGB-ZII), 

“The United States National Guard Security Cooperation and State 

Partnership Programs (SPP),” March 1, 2009. Jon McIntosh of NGB-J5 IA 

also provided information on the additional vetting process facilitated 

through the General Officer Advisory Council.

13 Col. Norman E. Arflack, “The National Guard State Partnership Program: Is it Still Relevant?,” Carlisle Barracks, Pa.: U.S. Army War College, 

1999, pp. 7-8.

14 National Guard Bureau, Office of International Initiatives (NGB-ZII), 

“National Guard as a ‘Bridge to America’ in Support of Democracy and 

Human Rights,” talking paper, March 12, 1993; memorandum, Director, 

Joint Plans and Strategy, “Supporting Democracy in Central and Eastern 

Europe – Expansion of National Guard State Partnership,” June 18, 1993.

15 Ibid.

16 Lt. Col. Michael Dubie, “The National Guard, Promoting United 

States National Security: A Case Study,” Air Command and Staff College, 

Air University, Maxwell AFB, Ala., April 1998, p. 20.

17 President William J. Clinton, National Security Strategy, July 1994, 3, 

5, 22; Norman Ray, “The Enlargement of NATO,” Central-Eastern Europe 

and Euro-Atlantic Security: Proceedings of the International Conference 

in Ljubljana-Bled, Slovenia, 24-26 April 1997, 16-17

18 History, U.S. Army Europe; accessed online, http://www.eur.army.mil/

organization/history.htm#century, accessed March 27, 2012.

19 Alvin Z. Rubinstein, “Dubious Security: NATO Enlargement in Strategic Perspective,” Central-Eastern Europe and Euro-Atlantic Security: 

Proceedings of the International Conference in Ljubljana-Bled, Slovenia, 

24-26 April 1997, p. 199. Slovenia was considered for membership as 

well, and thought to be in line to become a member of NATO in 1999, 

but was not accepted until 2004.

20 Clinton, National Security Strategy, July 1994, p. 2.

21 Clinton, National Security Strategy, July 1994, p. 13.

22 Hungarian Ministry of Defence, “In the Service of Peace – Medal 

Parade in Cyprus,” July 5, 2011 ; accessed online, http://akadalymentes.

kormany.hu/en/ministry-of-defence/news/in-the-service-of-peacemedal-parade-in-cyprus, January 14, 2013.

23 “Acknowledgements,” Constantine C. Menges, ed., Partnerships for 

Peace, Democracy and Prosperity, The Marshall Legacy Symposium, 

Washington, D.C., January 1996 (New York: Program on Transitions to 

Democracy, October 1996), p. xi.

24 President Bill Clinton, foreword, Constantine C. Menges, ed., 

Partnerships for Peace, Democracy and Prosperity, The Marshall Legacy 

Symposium, Washington D.C., January 1996 (New York: Program on 

Transitions to Democracy, October 1996), p. vii.

25 U.S. Army, European Command, Operation Joint Endeavor: USAREUR Headquarters After Action Report, vol. 1: (Heidelberg, Germany: 

U.S. Army Europe Command, May 1997), p. 13.

26 Retired Lt. Gen. John B. Conaway, Call Out the Guard! (Paducah: 

Turner Publishing Company, 1997), 227.

27 Letter, Gen. John M. Shalikashvili, Commander in Chief, U.S. Europe 

Command to Sen. Sam Nunn, Chairman, Senate Committee of Armed 

Services, September 30, 1993.

28 Congressional Record, Conference Report on H.R. 3116, Department 

of Defense Appropriations Act, 1994; House of Representatives, House 

Bill 8998, November 9, 1993.

29 Interview, retired Lt. Gen. Edward Baca, by William B. Boehm, Albuquerque, N.M., March 28, 2011.

30 Lt. Col. Charles R. Webb, “Georgia to Georgia: A Case for the State 

Partnership Program,” Carlisle, Pa., US Army War College, 1997, pp. 13-14.

31 Interview, retired Lt. Gen. Edward Baca, by William B. Boehm, Albuquerque, N.M., March 28, 2011.

32 Maj. Troy C. Morgan, “National Guard Bureau’s State Partnership 

Program: Enhancing Global Stability in the Post-Cold War Era,” Air 

Command and Staff College, Air University, Maxwell AFB, Ala., April 

2006, pp. 5-6.

33 Interview, retired Lt. Gen. Edward Baca, by William B. Boehm, 

Arlington, Va., August 25, 2009.

34 Interviews, retired Col. Robert “Bob” James, by Steven Stearns, 

Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Va., January 25, 2012; retired Lt. 

Gen. Edward D. Baca, March 28, 2011. 

35 Interview, retired Lt. Gen. Edward Baca, by William B. Boehm, 

Arlington, VA, August 25, 2009.

36 Capt. Gabe Johnson, “Kazakhstan Shares Deployment Experiences 

with Arizona-Mississippi Logistics Team,” 162nd Fighter Wing, Tucson, 

Ariz., July 30, 2009.
CHAPTER 2: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 2

37 Point paper, “Warsaw Initiative Fund,” 2011; accessed online, http://

www.dsca.mil/programs/pgm/mgt/wif.pdf, June 8, 2012.

38 Seamus O’Connor, “Guard Partnerships Expand into Africa, Pacific,” 

Army Times, February 19, 2008.

39 Staff Sgt. Roger Dey, “Montana Emergency Response Professionals 

Work to Kyrgyzstan Enhance Preparedness,” http://www.montanaguard.

com/publicaffairs/documents/EmergRespPR_2_.pdf, accessed June 26, 

2012.

40 Chris Whatley, “Building Lasting Relationships,” State Government 

News, February 2002, 12; accessed online, http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/sgn0202.pdf, June 20, 2013.
EXPANDING THE SPP FROM EUROPE TO THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

CHAPTER 3
CHAPTER 3: EXPANDING THE SPP FROM EUROPE TO THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 2

USA National Guard Col. Robert “Bob” James assumed 

leadership of the SPP in 1996 as the NGB International 

Affairs Division grew into a larger full-time operation 

during Lt. Gen. Baca’s tenure as CNGB.1

 James, 

in a 2012 interview, acknowledged that Baca’s support proved 

invaluable in his pursuit to move beyond USEUCOM and develop 

additional partnerships in Central and South America within the 

USSOUTHCOM area.2

Col. James was challenged to take the SPP to a new level of effectiveness by focusing more on military-to-civilian relations in coordination 

with partner country militaries. The result was an increased frequency 

of overseas exchanges with National Guard soldiers and airmen who 

could demonstrate their civilian skills to their partner countries in joint 

projects with the host armed forces. This included a variety of projects 

in many fields administered by state governments, including departments of commerce, agriculture and education.3

 This evolution from 

initial military-to-military exchanges underscored the versatility of the 

National Guard soldiers and airmen in their dual mission.

Another area of expansion was the assignment of an SPP representative from National Guard states to partner countries in Europe and 

the Western Hemisphere. This required an agreement among NGB, 

USEUCOM and USSOUTHCOM to station a National Guard state 

officer or NCO designated as a Bilateral Affairs Officer (BAO) in the 

Office of Defense Cooperation (ODC) in USEUCOM countries or as 

a coordinator in the United States Military Group (USMILGRP) in 

USSOUTHCOM countries. Initially, National Guard state personnel 

with language skills and a desire to work in a foreign setting qualified 

for coordinator positions. The original framework included a National 

Guard language registry as part of the coordination effort; however, the 

language skills did not ultimately become a requirement for assignment 

among MLTs. The National Guard states also recognized the value of 

having their own representative in the partner country’s capital, working 

directly on SPP issues and facilitating dialogue between the state and the 

partner country’s defense and military leadership.4

ROOTS OF THE PARTNERSHIP CONCEPT 

IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

Beginning in the 1970s, the National Guard committed a small number 

of units to conduct training exercises in Central America with the local 

armed forces in coordination with USSOUTHCOM. Typical joint 

missions included National Guard engineer units constructing roads, 

schools and clinics, and National Guard medical personnel providing 

care to underserved populations.5

 The National Guard worked with 

host country military and civilian authorities working on projects of 

the choosing of the host countries. Training U.S. troops with dedicated 

training funds in these countries in those early years was an extension o

the Total Force concept that took hold in the DOD.

By the 1980s, dozens of units had participated in these training operations. The notion of National Guard training overseas was seen as an 

important extension of the Total Force concept and had strong support 

of the USSOUTHCOM Commander, USA Gen. Paul Gorman. The 

exercises were carefully constructed to ensure that the host country 

worked with military and civilian authorities but that the projects were 

chosen by the country and that the local government, not the United 

States, received the bulk of the credit for the work accomplished. For 

the National Guard, all such exercises had to relate to training its troop

since the money was used to fund deployments to these locales. Despite 

early obstacles, the commander in chief of the U.S. Southern Comman

(CINCSOUTH), the NGB, and the host countries agreed that these 

cooperative exercises were beneficial for all concerned. They established 

a basis for future projects and amicable bilateral relations.

One early high-profile security cooperation program that was started 

in Central America was the “Blazing Trails” road building exercise 

in Panama. The Missouri Army National Guard, working with 

USSOUTHCOM, initiated this program with Panama in 1983. The 

deployments focused 

on road construction in 

underdeveloped areas 

of the country, and 

became the model for 

the Fuertes Caminos, or 

“strong roads.”6

 These 

were a series of exercises 

that would continue 

in Central America for 

several years. In addition 

to Missouri, National 

Guard elements from 

Louisiana, Wisconsin 

and North Carolina also 

participated in these duties.7

 In turn, the Fuertes Caminos exercise series 

became the model for National Guard overseas deployment training 

through the USSOUTHCOM area of operations.

There were also other joint training exercises, large and small, conducte

in Honduras, Costa Rica and Ecuador, and elsewhere in the region. 

Most exercises concentrated on engineer-specific tasks such as developin

One early high-profi

security cooperatio

program that was 

started in Central 

America was the 

“Blazing Trails” road 

building exercise in 

Panama.
28 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

access to potable water and constructing better community buildings. 

Many such activities had a significant medical, dental and veterinary 

component that provided valuable training for National Guard participants while materially benefitting local citizens in rural areas of the 

participating partner countries. ARNG and ANG units from Illinois, 

the District of Columbia, West Virginia, South Dakota, Maryland, 

Oklahoma, New Jersey, New Mexico and Pennsylvania also participated 

in these early partnerships.8

 This series of exercises continued through 

the late 1980s and laid the foundation for later activities in USSOUTHCOM under the SPP. 

THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE – POLITICAL 

CHANGES IN THE 1990S

Central and South America experienced marked political change in the 

early 1990s, the most notable of which took place in Nicaragua and El 

Salvador. Both countries had been torn by civil war through most of 

the 1980s. Elections replaced the Sandinista government in Nicaragua 

in 1990, while a peace accord ended civil war in El Salvador in 1992. 

Democratic elections followed the cessation of hostilities in both countries. Panama also experienced regime change after the apprehension of 

President Manuel Noriega in 1990.9

 In the aftermath of Operation Just 

Cause, the country ceased operating its armed forces and instead established a constabulary known as the Panamanian Public Forces (PPF).

Within the sphere of USSOUTHCOM, political changes necessitated 

strategic change. The United States experienced a new learning curve 

within its military establishment in the 1990s.10 This change came 

about with the reduction of forces worldwide among all the established 

combatant commands. As new democratic institutions evolved in Latin 

America through the early part of the 1990s, overall military strategy 

in the region emphasized taking “quiet [and] inexpensive steps through 

which to institutionalize and strengthen the functional linkage among 

the Western Hemisphere’s military leaders.”11 To accomplish this goal, 

the concept of forming partnerships with other Latin American nations 

gained acceptance.

FORGING POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS

After the SPP was established in the countries of Central Europe and 

Eurasia, USSOUTHCOM requested that the National Guard engage 

with its command to establish partnerships with countries in Central and 

South America. The SPP’s establishment in Latin America was a natural 

progression in the growth of the program. Other states in the United 

States could fill a void in what was then a “Euro-centric” program.12

ABOVE: Maj. Jeff Ford, Future Operations Officer for the Missouri 

National Guard, demonstrates to members of the Panama Police Force 

how the Missouri National Guard handles interoperable communication 

in natural disasters such as a tornado or a flood. (U.S. Army photo by 

Staff Sgt. Christopher Robertson, Missouri National Guard)

The United States also wished to make progress with goals of safety and 

security working in close contact with the countries of Latin America. 

Through the leadership provided by SecDef Perry, U.S. relations with 

Latin America were aligned to emphasize Latin American issues. 

This focus in turn gave the SPP the ability to make a distinct impact in 

the region.

Perry provided important policy support for SPP when he advocated 

greater U.S. attention toward Latin American security issues upon taking 

office in 1994. Perry favored a deeper engagement with the United 

States’ neighbors in the Western Hemisphere to meet emerging security 

threats such as arms trafficking and narcotics smuggling. He hosted 

a Conference for Latin American Defense Ministers in 1995 in 

Williamsburg, Va. to demonstrate his support for the region and 

attended a similar event in Argentina the following year. Perry also 

established the DOD Regional Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies 

at the National Defense University (NDU) that same year. His attention to strengthening shared values and international relationships with 

friendly nations in the Western Hemisphere was exceptional.13

This meeting was important to the expansion of the SPP because it 

emphasized cooperation and security among the nations of the hemisphere. The end of the Cold War steered U.S. resources east toward 

Europe, yet it could now focus on issues closer to the homeland. As was 

the case with Central and Eastern European nations, recognizing the 

need to seize the opportunity to deal with security and economic issues 

in the post-Cold War world opened many doors to cooperative efforts in 

the military and civilian arenas. 
CHAPTER 3: EXPANDING THE SPP FROM EUROPE TO THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 2

ABOVE: Nations of Central America, ca. 1985 (CIA Factbook)

Another facet of cooperation between the nations of Latin America and 

the United States was the notion of peacekeeping operations. Rather 

than having U.S. troops burdened with sole responsibility for foreign 

operations, defense cooperation among several nations, including Brazil 

and several Caribbean participants, opened the possibility of using 

shared interests in foreign posts to be leveraged in a positive manner. 

Examples of these peacekeeping operations were reported to the 

delegation at Williamsburg. 

On Tuesday, July 25, Perry opened the day’s working sessions praising delegates for “making history” by seizing the opportunities presented at the 

end of the Cold War to “begin our world over again in our hemisphere.” 

The tools needed to define the existing post-Cold War security agenda: 

a shared outlook regarding the importance of democratic government, 

free trade and open markets, and strong leaders that would protect these 

principles. Participants were also encouraged to establish a “framework 

for hemispheric defense establishments to work better together.”

Some of the smaller countries in the Western Hemisphere used the SPP 

to improve their security relationships with the United States. In the 

mid-1990s, USSOUTHCOM commanders urged NGB to participate 

and play an important role in developing capabilities of local militaries. 

USSOUTHCOM commanders were aware of past exercises administered by the National Guard in the 1980s and encouraged NGB to pair 

with interested countries in a continuation of their close partnerships. 

The first partner countries in the 

Western Hemisphere joined the 

SPP in 1996. They were LouisianaBelize, Missouri-Panama, Kentucky

Ecuador, and West Virginia-Peru. 

Other partnerships in South Americ

followed, including MississippiBolivia in 1999. These new pairing

demonstrated a continuation in 

program priorities, emphasizing 

greater attention to expanding 

military-to-civilian contacts. 

Throughout his tenure as CNGB, 

Lt. Gen. Baca forged good working 

relationships with USSOUTHCOM during the command of Gen

Joulwan. Baca visited several new 

partner countries in the Western 

Hemisphere, including Belize and 

Panama. After witnessing soldiers and airmen building schools and 

medical clinics deep in the jungle or playing baseball with local villagers 

in Belize, Baca stated he was seeing “America at its best.”14

ABOVE: Command Sgt. Maj. Ralph Rosemore of the Wisconsin National 

Guard's 1st Battalion, 128th Infantry, talks to Nicaraguan military 

members and answers questions during a leadership exchange that too

place at an NCO academy in Managua, Nicaragua, April 13–15, 2010. The 

three-day seminar provided service members information about the 

role of a USA NCO and covered topics like training, caring for soldiers 

and basic organizational structure. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Emily J. Russell

Wisconsin National Guard) 
30 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ABOVE: Honduran public affairs soldiers observe a mosaic of Puerto Rico's crest during a visit to the governor's mansion in Old San Juan. The visit of 

the Honduran military was part of the SPP in which they had the opportunity to visit the Puerto Rico National Guard training facilities and exchange 

training information with its leaders. (Army National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Joseph Rivera-Rebolledo)

BASIS FOR LATIN AMERICAN 

PARTNERSHIPS

When pairing a state with a Latin American country, NGB considered 

National Guard capabilities and shared experiences. In addition to these 

characteristics, other selection criteria that bonded the nations of Latin 

America and their counterpart U.S. states included:

• Shared cultural ties, history.

• Geographic similarities.

• Industrial/economic similarities.

• Prior engagement and cooperation efforts.

• Shared natural disaster threats and preparedness issues.15

For example, Florida had a large population of citizens from countries 

in Central and Latin America, and therefore was paired with two 

countries in the region. Geographical and industrial similarities were 

additional reasons to pair particular countries and states. One example 

was West Virginia and Peru, two areas with significant investments in 

the mining industry. Additionally, both areas had mountainous terrain, 

with rural populations that were not fully integrated into their respective 

national economies. The West Virginia National Guard, working with 

its military counterparts in Peru, conducted many SPP events over the 

years that helped develop strategic transportation networks and promote 

military support to civilian authorities.16

The regular rotation of Missouri National Guard units during annual 

training in Panama in the 1980s contributed greatly to the growth of 

state partnerships with Central and South American nations through 

the 1990s. The Missouri National Guard earned a sterling reputation 

during their time training in Central America that helped in the growth 

of the SPP in the Western Hemisphere. Though Missouri and Panama 

may seem culturally distinct to observers, their future SPP relationship 

grew from the time the Missouri National Guard undertook the Blazing 

Trails operation, which used nearly 10,000 troops to construct or repair 

bridges, roads, medical clinics, and schools starting in 1985. Missouri 

engineers also drilled water wells to bring clean water to poor villages in 

later training stints. 

Other ties bound Latin America to certain U.S. states when partnership 

pairings were taken into consideration. In early 2012 Louisiana, in 
CHAPTER 3: EXPANDING THE SPP FROM EUROPE TO THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 3

coordination with USSOUTHCOM, established an SPP partnership 

with Haiti. This partnership was the culmination of a close relationship 

developed between Louisiana and Haiti when Louisiana National Guard 

soldiers deployed to the country in the aftermath of the devastating 

earthquake of January 2010, part of USSOUTHCOM humanitarian 

relief efforts. Louisiana and Haiti shared a French colonial history as well 

as a need to prepare for tropical storms in their respective coastal regions.17

The shared experiences of the state National Guards through the many 

annual exercises developed a strong bond with their Latin American 

counterparts. In contrast to the nations of Central and Eastern Europe 

and Eurasia, all of which were ruled by the dictates of the Warsaw Pact, 

no prior cooperative military exchanges had taken place. The National 

Guard’s overseas deployment training in Central and South America 

therefore validated the operations and the success of the state partnerships that followed in the 1990s and into the new millennium.

SOLIDIFYING PARTNERSHIPS

Strong professional and personal relationships are important dividends 

of the SPP. In an interview with leadership from the Kentucky National 

Guard in 2011, there were many accomplishments listed that mutually benefitted the participants of military-to-military and military-tocivilian exercises. In an interview, Kentucky TAG Maj. Gen. John R. 

Groves Jr. also cited the personal contacts made in the early years of the 

ABOVE: 1st Sgt. Albert Wass de Czege and Sgt. Scott Davis from the 

Florida National Guard 221st Ordnance Company (shown here in civilian 

clothes) demonstrate to members of the St. Kitts and Nevis Defense 

force, police, fire services and coast guard how to wire and detonate C4 

explosives during an SPP subject matter expert exchange in 2011. 

(Photo by 2nd Lt. Gavin Rollins).

ABOVE: SPP public service announcement, 2000. (Courtesy NGB Public 

Affairs Office)

program paid dividends later. For example, one junior Ecuadorian officer had worked his way through the force to become head of the nation

defense. He was in a unique position to see the positive attributes that 

his defense forces were gaining through the SPP.18

Panama had no standing military force after President Noriega was 

arrested in 1989. The country established a public police force modeled on the National Guard to counter any possible acts of aggression 

against the government. As a result, Missouri developed a unique 

security partnership with Panama’s police force in close cooperation wit

USSOUTHCOM. National Guard citizen-soldiers and airmen were 

able to complete civilian development work to benefit the citizens of 

Panama. Due in part to their previous relationship, Panama and Missouri became partners in the SPP in 1996.19 This also marked the first 

time that an SPP partner country did not field a military, but rather, a 

state defense force. Costa Rica, a partner with New Mexico, similarly 

does not use a standing military force.20
32 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ABOVE: From left to right, Task Force Kout Men Commander Col. Michael 

J. Borrel; Lt. Rogelio Pop with the Belize Defense Force Commander; 

Brig. Gen. Dario O. Tapia; Louisiana National Guard’s TAG, Maj. Gen. 

Bennett C. Landreneau, and Louisiana’s State Senior Enlisted Advisor 

Command Sgt. Maj. Caillier tour the Desronvilles engineering site in 

Gonaives, Haiti, Aug. 19, 2010. (Photo by Spc. Jessica Lopez, Louisiana 

National Guard)

By the end of the 1990s and the early years of the 21st century, Puerto 

Rico and Florida each had multiple SPP partners in the Caribbean 

Basin. Puerto Rico maintained partner agreements with Honduras in 

1998 and with the Dominican Republic in 2003. Florida first paired 

with Venezuela in 1998 then with Guyana in 2003, and most recently 

with the Regional Security System (RSS) in 2006, which consists of 

seven island nations in the eastern Caribbean. Although the partnership with Venezuela has seen little activity in recent years because of the 

instability of its government throughout the 2000s, Florida’s National 

Guard has maintained a steady level of activity outside their first 

partnership. Florida is nonetheless well positioned to help USSOUTHCOM promptly re-establish ties with the Venezuelan military should 

relations start to improve.21

Florida’s portfolio is of particular interest because this latest partnership 

arrangement with the RSS. The RSS is a collection of independent 

Caribbean nations including Antigua and Barbuda; Barbados; Dominica; Grenada; St. Kitts and Nevis; St. Lucia and St. Vincent; and the 

Grenadines.22 The sovereigns in the region are bound by common 

security objectives, including initiatives to deal with drug smuggling, 

human trafficking, and other criminal activities. This multinational 

arrangement works well in cultural and geographic terms, and could 

serve as a blueprint for future partnership arrangements with other 

smaller nations.

EXPANSION OF EFFORTS

Other nations entered into agreements in the 2000s to 

further strengthen the bonds first established in 1996. 

These additions included New Hampshire pairing with 

El Salvador in 2000; Connecticut with Uruguay in 

2000; Massachusetts with Paraguay in 2001; Arkansas 

with Guatemala in 2002; Delaware with Trinidad and 

Tobago in 2004; New Mexico with Costa Rica; and 

South Dakota with Suriname in 2006. South Carolina 

added another partner in the USSOUTHCOM region 

with Colombia in 2012.

In the spirit of expanding the scope of the SPP, recent 

activity in Latin America has emphasized cooperative 

efforts for the region of the Americas. These activities 

include SMEEs, seminars, conferences, and senior officer visits. They have 

taken place along with other security engagement activities that enhance 

defense knowledge with regard to military-to-military exchanges.

For example, Mississippi and Bolivia undertook a project that focused 

on human rights in 2010. It employed members of the Mississippi 

Band of Choctaw Indians (MBCI), and the Aymara people of Andean 

high country (altiplano), located in Bolivia near its border with Peru. 

Some of the MBCI were members of the Mississippi National Guard. 

They traveled to Bolivia that summer to share their legal knowledge and 

experience with the Aymara, including an SMEE on the integration of 

military, civil, and indigenous law. 

ABOVE: Suriname Army military police member Sgt. 1st Class Rashkoemar 

Mahangoe demonstrates restraint techniques on his partner Sgt. 1st 

Class Cyron Doemoeng, as observed by Sgt. Boyd Reiwnitz (center) of 

the 235th Military Police Company, South Dakota Army National Guard, 

during the Golden Coyote exercise in Rapid City, S.D., June 13, 2012. Suriname soldiers exchanged ideas with the 235th during a subject matter 

expert exchange. (Photograph by Staff Sgt. Charles Butler, South Dakota 

National Guard Public Affairs)
CHAPTER 3: EXPANDING THE SPP FROM EUROPE TO THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 3

Later in 2010, five Aymara tribe members journeyed to Mississippi on 

a reciprocal visit with the Mississippi National Guard. They attended 

several classes and conducted lectures/panel discussions. The Bolivian 

visitors also met later with a primary attorney for the MBCI, as well as a 

tribal economic development expert. In addition to these meetings, the 

Aymara discussed court/judicial systems, health care, education, housing, 

and community development issues. This exchange with the MBCI 

provided the Aymara a helpful reference point for the development of 

a legal system. It illustrated how this kind of dialogue could promote 

respect for indigenous and cultural rights.23

The SPP is ideally tailored to each partner country’s needs and capabilities. Although there are other common issues that states and partner 

countries focus upon more frequently, it is the shared experiences and 

challenges in the United States and abroad that require the greatest 

amount of attention. This example of a military-to-civilian exchange 

demonstrates the utility of the SPP.

Goals to further enhance the SPP in Latin America continue to evolve an

grow. The 2012 USSOUTHCOM Theater Campaign Plan (TCP) ident

fied 13 priority objectives to promote security and stability in the region. 

SPP conducts activities in support of nine of these goals, including: 

• Counter Illicit Trafficking/Support of U.S. Government 

Interdiction Goals

• Maintain a Strong, Cooperative U.S. Posture in the Region

• Build Capacity for Foreign Humanitarian Assistance/ 

Disaster Response

• Build Partnership Capacity for Peace Support Operations

• Support for Security Sector Reform

• Develop Partner Nation Military and Regional 

Health Preparedness

• Improve Energy and Environmental Security

• Ensure Human Rights Compliance

• Expand Regional Access24

ABOVE: Members of the Arkansas National Guard partner with Guatemala to help build a women's clinic in the Guatemalan town of Tactic, part of the 

SPP (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Anthony D. Jones).
34 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ABOVE: Members of the Ecuadorian military and pararescue from the 

123rd Special Tactics Squadron of the Kentucky Air National Guard 

prepare to conduct a dive while tethered to a rope in order to perform 

a sweep of the nearby area at an SPP exchange at Dale Hollow Lake in 

Albany, Ky., September 17, 2010. (Courtesy Kentucky National Guard)

AWARD-WINNING WORK

From these humble beginnings, the SPP would be recognized as one 

of the most significant U.S. international initiatives since the Marshall 

Plan. The SPP received the Dr. William J. Perry Award for Excellence in 

Security and Defense Education in 2011, bestowed by DOD’s Center 

for Hemispheric Defense Studies at NDU. The award recognized the 

SPP’s significant security cooperation contributions in the Western 

Hemisphere over the past 15 years. It is fitting that the first SecDef that 

strongly supported SPP is the namesake of this prestigious award. 

The initial efforts of the National Guard working in close cooperation 

with USSOUTHCOM, coupled with the addition of more states working with partner countries in the 2000s, produced a remarkable record 

of accomplishments for the host nations and provided unique training 

and cultural exchange opportunities for the respective state National 

Guards. There can be no doubt the establishment of the SPP helped to 

advance security and stability and worked to fulfill the promise of its 

founders and advocates from nearly 20 years ago.25 ✦

ENDNOTES

1 Interview, retired Col. Robert “Bob” James, by Steven Stearns, 

Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Va., January 25, 2012.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Lt. Col. Nancy J. Wetherill, “U.S. Forward Presence: Army National 

Guard Engineer Training in Central America,” Carlisle, Pa., US Army War 

College, 1996, p. ii.

6 Spc. Thomas W. Mehl, “Fuertos Caminos: The National Guard is 

Building More Than Just Strong Roads in Panama,” The On Guard, April 

1995, 6; information paper, “Army and Air National Guard Overseas 

Training in Latin America,” included in “Latin America and the National 

Guard,” Arlington, Va., National Guard Bureau, Office of Public Affairs, 

August 25, 1987.

7 Michael D. Doubler, I Am the Guard: A History of the Army National 

Guard, 1636-2000 (Arlington: National Guard Bureau, 2001), p. 234.

8 Author unknown, “Latin America and the National Guard,” Arlington, 

Va., National Guard Bureau, Office of Public Affairs, 1988.

9 President George H.W. Bush, “Remarks Announcing the Surrender of 

General Manuel Noriega in Panama”; accessed online, http://bushlibrary.

tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php?id=1397&year=1990&month=01, 

October 16, 2012. 

10 Interview, retired Col. Robert “Bob” James, by Steven Stearns, 

Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, VA, January 25, 2012.

11 Russell W. Ramsey, “US Strategy for Latin America,” Parameters

magazine, U.S. Army War College, Fall 1994, pp.70–83; accessed online, 

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/USAWC/parameters/Articles/1994/ramsey.

htm, October 16, 2012.

12 Interview, retired Col. Robert “Bob” James, by Steven Stearns, 

Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, Va., January 25, 2012.

13 U.S. Department of Defense, “Defense Ministerial of the Americas,” 

proceedings of the Summit of Democratically Elected Leaders of the 

Western Hemisphere, July 24–26, 1995; viewed online, http://www.

summit-americas.org/Williamsburg-spanish.htm, May 16, 2012.

14 Interview, retired Lt. Gen. Edward Baca, Albuquerque, N.M., March 

28, 2011.

15 Seamus O’Connor, “Guard Partnerships Expand into Africa, Pacific,” 

Army Times, February 19, 2008; accessed online, http://www.armytimes.

com/news/2008/02/airforce_guard_partnership_080217, March 13, 2012.

16 Lt. Col. Michael Cadle, “West Virginia Shares Rural Health 

Ideas with Peru,” National Guard website, http://www.ng.mil/news/

archives/2010/05/051410-Peru-print.aspx, April 10, 2010, accessed 

October 12, 2010.

17 Interview, retired Col. Robert “Bob” James, by Steven Stearns, 

Virginia Military Institute, Lexington Va., January 25, 2012; SSG Denis B. 

Ricou, “New Partnership Between Louisiana and Haiti, “January 19, 2012; 

accessed online, http://geauxguard.com/new-partnership-betweenlouisiana-guard-haiti-announced/, May 25, 2012.

18 Interview, Maj. Gen Edward Tonini, by Steven Stearns, Frankfort, Ky., 

April 29, 2011. 
CHAPTER 3: EXPANDING THE SPP FROM EUROPE TO THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE 3

19 National Guard Bureau, International Affairs (J-53-IA), “Missouri 

National Guard State Partnership Program in Panama,” accessed October 6, 2010, http://www.ng.mil/ia_backup/states/states/mo_panama.

htm.

20 Interview, Maj. Gen. Kenny Montoya, Santa Fe, N.M., March 28, 2011.

21 John Finney and Jon McIntosh, “Nomination of the National Guard 

State Partnership Program (SPP) in the Western Hemisphere for the 

Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies (CHDS) Dr. William J. Perry 

Award for Excellence in Security and Defense Education,” June 15, 2011, 

p. 16.

22 Regional Security System, “Member States;” accessed online, http://

www.rss.org.bb/Index.htm, October 16, 2012.

23 Finney and McIntosh, pp. 14–15.

24 Finney and McIntosh, pp. 8–17.

25 Sgt. Darron Salzer, “National Guard State Partnership Program 

Garners Prestigious Award,” National Guard Bureau Public Affairs Office, 

September 15, 2011; accessed online, March 21, 2012.
ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN ASIA AND AFRICA

CHAPTER 4
CHAPTER 4: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN ASIA AND AFRICA 3

NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY 2002 – 

DEFEND, PRESERVE AND EXTEND

The SPP in the Middle East and Central Asia has been 

a useful security cooperation program in supporting 

USCENTCOM priorities in this volatile region of the 

world.1

 The war in Afghanistan became the nation’s key 

focus by the end of 2001, as did the Iraq war that started in 2003. 

USCENTCOM moved swiftly to focus on its role of defeating terrorism 

in the region. The United States recognized the importance of strong 

partnerships to defeat terrorism and prevent future attacks. To this end, 

the DOD needed to employ more of its internal assets for wider, greater 

goals in a changed international atmosphere as it fought two wars as par

of an international coalition.

The NSS of 2002 issued by President George W. Bush stated:

... [The United States seeks] ... to create a balance of power that 

favors human freedom: conditions in which all nations and all 

societies can choose for themselves the rewards and challenges of 

political and economic liberty. In a world that is safe, people will 

be able to make their own lives better. We will defend the peace by 

fighting terrorists and tyrants. We will preserve the peace by building 

good relations among the great powers. We will extend the peace by 

encouraging free and open societies on every continent.2

The importance of developing partnerships in the Middle East and 

elsewhere cannot be overstated. As of June 2012, SPP partner countries 

were providing more than 31,000 military personnel in support of 

United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU) peacekeeping efforts. 

These deployments reduce pressure on U.S. forces worldwide and lessen 

the need for costly U.S. military involvement in future contingencies. 

For example, Jordan, an important new Middle Eastern partner joining 

the SPP in 2004, worked closely through its Royal Air Force with 

the Colorado National Guard. USAF facilitation ensured successful 

cooperation in Libya with Operation Odyssey Dawn in 2011.3

 The 

Colorado Air National Guard assisted Jordan in taking on NATO tasks 

without heavy U.S. support. This kind of UN-sanctioned and regionally 

supported intervention may be a model for future DOD involvement in 

contingency operations.

NEW PARTNERS IN PACIFIC COMMAND

Following Cols. Bob James and Virgil “Lee” Iams, the SPP continued its 

expansion around the world under the leadership of USAF Col. Mark 

Kalber, who had served as deputy of the NGB-IA under James from 

1996 to 2000, and then as the division chief from 2001 to 2005. Prior 

to their administrations, the NSS of 1994 had focused on East Asia and 

the Pacific Rim region, and noted the history of U.S. military involvement on the Asian continent in the 20th century. By the 1990s, the U.S

Pacific Command (USPACOM) area of responsibility shifted attention 

to growing economic opportunity and political normalization. Nations 

such as Singapore and China typified this economic growth, while Japan 

and South Korea continued as the foundation of stability in the region. 

Furthermore, neighboring nations such as the Philippines and Indonesia 

saw democratic governments taking root.4

 By 1994, bilateral treaties with 

Australia, Japan, South Korea and Thailand effectively focused U.S. 

national interests on the “New Pacific Community,”5

 one greatly changed 

since World War II (1941–1945) and the Korean War (1950–1953).

t Within USPACOM, the first country welcomed to the SPP was the 

Philippines, partnered with Hawaii in February 2000, with Guam as an 

“associate” partner. In 2006, with the addition of Indonesia as Hawaii’

second partner, Guam assumed a leading role in SPP partnership 

activities with the Philippines. Activities Guam has conducted in the 

Philippines in the 2000s have included SMEEs in best medical practice

and the renovation of schoolhouses in the Cebu province.6

Other partnerships were soon 

added including ThailandWashington in 2002 and 

Mongolia-Alaska in 2003. In 

subsequent years when USAF 

Col. Cathy Rodriguez and 

USA Col. William “Randy” 

Everett led the program as 

chief of International Affairs, 

Oregon partnered with 

Bangladesh in 2008 and 

Cambodia partnered with 

Idaho in 2009. These later 

additions served to connect 

Southeast Asia with U.S. West 

Coast states, as well as Alaska, 

Hawaii and Guam. These 

geographical pairings also underscored the many common challenges 

that both partner entities face in military and civil affairs. Partnership 

growth in USPACOM also continued under the leadership of USAF 

Col. Joey Booher, as Oregon signed a memorandum of agreement with 

Vietnam in 2012.

Royal Thai Armed Forces personnel visited Washington D.C. in 2001 

exchanging information on missions and capabilities and discussing the 

“We will preserv

the peace by 

building good 

relations among 

the great power

We will extend 

the peace by 

encouraging fre

and open societ

on every contine

– NATIONAL SECUR

STRATEGY, 
38 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ABOVE: The Medical First Responders course was conducted with the 

Royal Cambodian Armed Forces and Idaho National Guard Soldiers 

during Angkor Sentinel 2013. This exercise took place May 18–27, 2013. 

Pictured here, heart rates escalate as a Royal Cambodian Armed Forces 

comrade suffered a simulated gunshot wound to the chest, fractured 

femur, lower leg amputation, and second-degree burns on both arms 

during the practical exam. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Krista Fletcher) 

possibility of becoming an SPP partner country. By 2002, Thailand had 

formally joined the SPP with the Washington National Guard as its 

partner. Washington had joined forces with one of the United States’ 

longest-standing allies in Asia, with whom they had enjoyed standing 

diplomatic relations since 1832. Thailand also was the first nation in 

mainland Asia to join the SPP.

One of the main military exchanges that the Washington National 

Guard and the Thai military pursued was to improve port container 

security for both countries. This consisted of monitoring the U.S. Port 

of Seattle and the Thai Port of Laem Chabang in Pattaya. Given the 

drug and human trafficking that occurs in and around Thailand, 

ABOVE: A firefighter from the Port of Laem Chabang in Pattaya, 

Thailand, secures a hose fitting during a training exercise near the Port, 

Monday, May 19, 2009. Members of the Washington National Guard have 

worked with Thai first responders, to include fire fighters from Laem 

Chabang, on tasks such as search and rescue, mass casualty scenarios 

and incident command and control as part of the SPP. (U.S. Army photo 

by Staff Sgt. Jon Soucy)

particularly in the area near the Myanmar border, both partners collaborated on better methods to enhance their respective security procedures. 

Lessons learned in Washington benefitted Thai shipping security in 

Laem Chabang, which in turn benefitted the Port of Seattle and the 

safety of its commercial shipping.7

 United efforts between SPP partners 

against potential terrorist activity represented some of the ways that 

military-to-military exchanges have mutually benefited partners in 

recent years.

The SPP in USPACOM mitigated geographic distance and demanding 

logistics through careful planning and close consultation with stakeholders. According to USA Maj. Gen. Raymond F. Rees, the recently retired 

TAG for the Oregon National Guard, the high cost of travel in the 

region is something that Oregon must factor into planning operations 

for SPP events. In the short time that Oregon and Bangladesh have been 

paired, an excellent relationship has developed. Bangladesh has one of 

the world’s largest population densities, and has historically endured 

repeated natural disasters.8

 The partnership with Oregon also offered 

valuable mutual security cooperation including seaport and airport 

security for the Bangladeshi people.9

 In return, the Bangladesh military 

can share its unparalleled UN peacekeeping experience with the Oregon 

National Guard to serve overseas in extended capacities. 

Oregon added to its responsibilities in November 2012, when it secured 

an SPP agreement with Vietnam. This landmark event offered a chance 

for the United States to highlight the commemoration of the 50th 

ABOVE: Spc. Mereylen Denora, from the Guam Army National Guard 

105th Troop Command (second from left), helps check a local resident’s 

vision, while TSGT Paul Stoycheff (right), an Optometry Technician 

with the 624th Aeromedical Staging Squadron based in Hawaii, assists 

another resident. They were working alongside AFP optometry 

technicians during the medical subject matter expert exchange. 

(Guam National Guard photo by Maj. Ken Ola)
CHAPTER 4: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN ASIA AND AFRICA 3

ABOVE: A delegation from Vietnam joins Oregon National Guard leadership for a photo in the Senate chamber at the Oregon State Capitol 

of Salem, April 15, 2013. The group, led by Lt. Gen. Tran Quang Khue, 

deputy chief of general staff of the Vietnam People’s Army, met with 

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber and took a tour of the Capitol. (Photo by 

Master Sgt. Nick Choy, Oregon Military Department Public Affairs)

anniversary of the Vietnam War. The agreement is indicative of the 

progress made between the two countries that were engaged in the United 

States’ longest-lasting war. Rees characterized this partnership as one 

that was particularly rewarding because it could “never be imagined,”10

since he served in the Vietnam War as a combat engineer in the USA.

Mongolia, partnered with Alaska since 2003, had no clear policy for the 

deployment of troops outside its borders. However, through the SPP, it 

became one of the first coalition countries to contribute soldiers to the 

war in Iraq, when it formally requested to 

serve with its SPP counterparts from Alaska. 

The co-deployments between the Mongolian 

Expeditionary Task Force (METF) and the 

Alaska National Guard were strengthened 

over five years in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

This relationship endures today with joint 

ABOVE: USA Maj. Gen. Raymond F. Rees, TAG of the Oregon National 

Guard, and Vietnam Lt. Gen. Tran Quang Khue, vice chairman of the 

National Committee for Search and Rescue, congratulate each other 

following the official signing ceremony for the SPP between Oregon 

and Vietnam on Nov. 27, 2012. (Courtesy U.S. Embassy, Hanoi) 

RIGHT: Alaska Army National Guard Master 

Sgt. Eric Schlemme (left) and Mongolian 

Armed Forces Senior Sergeant Battulga 

Baatar discuss tactics and techniques used by 

the Mongolian Expeditionary Force executing 

a traffic control point training lane at Five Hills 

Training Area in Mongolia during Khaan Quest 

2009. (Photo by Capt. Amy B. Slinker, Alaska 

National Guard, August 6, 2010)
40 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

forces serving in Afghanistan. Additionally, the Mongolians’ experienc

with Russian heavy weapons systems allows them to support the trainin

of the Afghan National Army. In total, over 1600 soldiers of the Armed

Forces of Mongolia have partnered with the Alaska National Guard in 

support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom

As of 2013, the Alaska-Mongolia partnership had shared a total of 13 

rotations since 2004, seven in Afghanistan and six in Iraq. This is the mo

of any partnership among all 68 at the time of this book’s publication. 

Alaska SPP Coordinator USA Lt. Col. Steve Wilson developed strong 

personal and professional relationships with Mongolia’s military defens

leaders.11 One example of this bond comes from one of the most successful initiatives to emerge from the partnership, an exercise named 

“Khaan Quest.” While not exclusively an SPP initiative, this event 

surfaced from the personal relationships established within the SPP. 

Khaan Quest is a multinational peace support operations training 

hosted by the Mongolian Armed Forces and USPACOM at the Five 

Hills Training Center located outside the Mongolian capital Ulaanbaatar. The task emphasizes mission effectiveness, sharing military 

tactics and procedures, and training the armed forces of several nations 

to meet UN standards in international affairs and peacekeeping support 

missions. Khaan Quest has included soldiers from India, Nepal, Thailand, South Korea and France. It allows soldiers to gain multicultural 

experience and promotes shared military tactics. The new relationships 

ABOVE: Soldiers from the Alaska Army National Guard and Mongolian 

Expeditionary Task Force, Artillery Mobile Training team, are pictured 

in front of the Kabul Military Training Center in Afghanistan on Dec. 17, 

2009. Maj. Wayne Don, top row, third from left, and Master Sgt. Eric Schlemme, top row, fifth from left, are a two-member team from the Alaska 

Army National Guard embedded with the Mongolian Expeditionary Task 

Force in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. They are the sixth 

rotation of Alaska Army National Guardsmen to volunteer to deploy with 

the Mongolians. (Photo courtesy of the Alaska National Guard)

e 

g 

. 

st 

e 

ABOVE: The Utah National Guard’s 23rd Army Band performed in Kenitra, 

Morocco, July 3, 2010. (Photo courtesy of the Utah National Guard Public 

Affairs Office.)

that emerge encourage a coalition mindset that is increasingly important 

in the current global climate.

One of the strongest similarities between Mongolia and Alaska, and 

why this is such a productive relationship, is the reliance on natural 

resources for revenue. Mongolia’s population of 2.7 million depends on 

mining and agriculture for half of the country’s economic output. In an 

effort facilitated by the SPP, Mongolian President Nambaryn Enkhbayar 

visited Alaska and met with resource agencies and private industries to 

develop ideas for strengthening their long-term resource investment 

policies. The Mongolian government planned to establish a sovereign 

wealth fund modeled on the Alaska Permanent Fund, which sets aside a 

certain share of oil and mineral revenue to benefit the current and future 

residents of Alaska. The Mongolian government hopes its fund will help 

stabilize its economy and increase the average annual income, currently 

at $1,680 per person. 

As a result of the successful SPP military-to-military relationship, 

mining fellowships and scholarships have been created in Alaska and 

funded by the private sector to exchange education, business and 

cultural ideas with Mongolia. A student exchange program has been 

established between the University of Alaska and the Mongolian 

government to increase mining engineer education opportunities. 

The SPP uses the dual state and federal role of the National Guard to 

connect experts from the State of Alaska, governmental agencies, private 

businesses, universities, and the Alaska National Guard to strengthen 

ties and further build on the successful initiatives and friendship it has 

generated. Alaska continues to work with the Mongolian military on 

emergency management and disaster response, health care improvement, 

and military reform.12
CHAPTER 4: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN ASIA AND AFRICA 4

ABOVE: Members of the 106th Rescue Wing, New York Air National Guard, demonstrate the capabilities of an HH-60 Pave Hawk helicopter during a 

visit to South Africa in 2010. (Courtesy New York State Division of Military & Naval Affairs) 

AFRICA — A RISING PRIORITY

By the end of the 1990s, the African continent became, according to the

U.S. NSS of 2002:

...a place where promise and opportunity sit side by side with disease,

war, and desperate poverty. This threatens a core value of the United 

States – preserving human dignity and our strategic priority – 

combating global terror. We will work with others for an African 

continent that lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity. Together

with our European allies, we must help strengthen Africa’s fragile 

states, help build indigenous capability to secure porous borders, and 

help build up the law enforcement and intelligence infrastructure to 

deny havens for terrorists.13

This NSS also recognized that political and economic instability in 

Africa made it a haven for terrorist organizations. It became essential 

that the United States initiate a realistic policy that included the African 

continent as an important component of defense strategies. In the 

1990s, USEUCOM had been responsible for U.S. defense engagement 

in Africa.14 The establishment of U.S. Africa Command (USAFRICOM) in October 2007 provided a stronger focus for DOD on the 

continent.15

Africa’s role in U.S. defense policy increased after 9/11. In addition 

to carrying out offensive strikes in Afghanistan where the Taliban and 

ABOVE: Col. Rick Gibney points out features of an MQ-1 ground control 

station simulator to Lt. Gen. Peter Blay, the chief of defense staff for the 

Ghana Armed Forces, in Fargo, ND on April 16, 2010. Officials from the 

Ghanaian Armed Forces visited North Dakota to learn about the capabilities of the North Dakota National Guard, and to continue building th

bilateral relationship that they have through the SPP. The North Dakota 

Air Guard flies the MQ-1 remotely piloted aircraft in Fargo, and uses 

the simulator to train pilots and sensor operators at the unit. (Photo by 

Senior Master Sgt. David H. Lipp, North Dakota National Guard)
42 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ABOVE: Airmen with the North Dakota National Guard’s 119th Wing Civil 

Engineer Squadron clean the interior of a building on Burma Camp near 

Accra, Ghana. The building will serve as classrooms to train members 

of the Ghanaian Armed Forces. The two-week mission for the North 

Dakota Airmen is providing valuable training on contingency skills while 

helping Ghana, North Dakota’s partner in the SPP. (Photo courtesy of 

the North Dakota National Guard)

al-Qaida terrorist networks were based, the DOD maintained close 

observation of Somalia, an ungoverned space proving to be fertile 

recruiting ground for terrorist activity throughout the first decade of the 

2000s. Expanding the SPP to Africa under USAFRICOM would serve 

to bolster countries in the region and combat the influence of terrorist 

and criminal forces.

South Africa was the first country in Africa to become an SPP partner 

on June 20, 2003, when it established a relationship with the New York 

National Guard in coordination wi

National Defense Force (SANDF) 

paired with the New York Guard 

because of complementary infantry units as well as a combination 

th USEUCOM. The South African 

RIGHT: U.S. service members, 

including Airmen from the Vermont 

National Guard, carry a local 

woman unable to walk into the 

gates of the clinic in Thies, Senegal, 

July 11, 2012. The medical care 

provided by U.S. service members 

is part of Exercise Western Accord 

2012, a multi-lateral exercise with 

Senegalese and several West 

African nations. The training 

exercise ran from June 26 to July 

24, 2012 and involved the armed 

forces of Senegal, Burkina Faso, 

Guinea, Gambia and France, as 

well as U.S. service members— 

primarily Reservists from the 

Marines, Army, Navy, and Air 

Force. (U.S. Marine Corps photo 

by Lance Cpl. Jessica DeRose)

of fixed-wing and rotor-wing aircraft in the South African air forces 

similar to those in the New York ANG. The ANG’s pararescue training 

and small unit exchange exercises have been a feature of the security 

relationship with the largest economy and political leader on the 

African continent.16

Other African nation SPP partnerships formed in 2004 were Morocco 

and Utah; Tunisia and Wyoming; and Ghana and North Dakota. The 

Utah and Morocco partnership has shared strategies and training in 

special operations force tactics and mountain rescue, as well as refining 

medical corps skills. Tunisia, a starting point for regime change in the 

Arab world in 2011, has shared training exercises with Wyoming. Both 

the Wyoming National Guard and the Tunisian military operate C-130s 

and have similar field artillery. 

North Dakota and Ghana have exchanged strategies on how to curtail and 

mitigate flood damage, a phenomenon that has caused great destruction 

across the upper Midwestern United States.17 Another partnership 

featuring the pairing of the most populous U.S. state with the most 

populous African country, California and Nigeria, was added in 2006. 

North Carolina and Botswana, as well as Vermont and Senegal, were 

added in January 2008. There remain many opportunities in Africa 

for future relationships in coordination with USAFRICOM, and the 

CCDRs have expressed a desire for the program to expand further.18
CHAPTER 4: ESTABLISHING THE SPP IN ASIA AND AFRICA 4

“We will work with others for an 

African continent that lives in 

liberty, peace, and growing 

prosperity. Together with our 

European allies, we must help 

strengthen Africa’s fragile states, 

help build indigenous capability to 

secure porous borders, and help 

build up the law enforcement and 

intelligence infrastructure to deny 

havens for terrorists.”

– NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY, 2002

MIDDLE EAST

The first partnership in the Middle East began in 2004 between 

Colorado and Jordan. This marked a significant milestone within the 

USCENTCOM CCMD. Jordan was the first Middle East country to 

join the program and the efforts to bring about this arrangement were 

championed by Gen. John Abizaid, then the commander of USCENTCOM and formerly a student at the University of Jordan, in the capital 

city of Amman. This partnership may not initially have displayed commonalities between a Muslim-majority country and state in the western 

United States, yet through the years in which Colorado and Jordan have 

shared ideas and exchanged training in military and civilian functions, a 

fruitful bond has been formed.

Jordan is resource-challenged. It has made good on the notion of the 

development of “human capital,” that is, a young population eager for 

education and a willingness to try new challenges as they arise. It is a 

nation looking toward the future as it also points to its landmarks from 

ancient times as a magnet for tourism and further development. Jordan 

also has a great interest in aviation, and Colorado is a renowned center 

of aviation. Prince Feisal, as chief of the Jordanian Air Force, is interested 

in helping his aviation units improve. The Colorado ANG, with its F-16 

fleet, offers an excellent opportunity to train Jordanian pilots who fly 

the same aircraft. This multi-unit training saves money and incorporates 

efficiencies for both nations. This critical area of the world demands 

vigilant attention, and the partnership established between Colorado 

and Jordan represents one of the best multinational arrangements that 

the DOD could hope to maintain.19

TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LEADERSHIP, 

EXPANSION OF SPP 

Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum became the 25th CNGB in April 2003. 

A native of Baltimore, Md., Blum had previously commanded the 

National Guard’s 29th Infantry Division. His first extended exposure to 

international affairs took place in Bosnia and Herzegovina, where he led 

the NATO peacekeeping mission Multinational Division North (MND

North), in Operation Joint Forge in 2001.20 While commanding MND

North, Blum dealt with local issues in a foreign country on a daily basis

This command included brigade-sized contingents of Russian, Nordic 

and Turkish soldiers. Blum gained valuable experience in the challenges 

and opportunities of coalition operations that would influence him 

during his five-year tenure as CNGB through November 2008. Blum’s 

tour of duty included landmark events such as Hurricane Katrina, 

Operation Jump Start (Southwest U.S. border security), and the major 

mobilization of National Guard units for the conflicts in Afghanistan 

and Iraq. He also led the largest National Guard transformation in 

history as it transitioned from a strategic reserve to an operationally 

ready force.21

A vigorous proponent of the SPP, Blum presided over the establishment 

of 20 new partnerships, including the first partnerships in Africa and 

the Middle East. Blum organized several regional SPP conferences: two 

in the Balkan Peninsula and one in Honolulu, Hawaii, to exchange 

information and review best practices for disaster response and crisis 

management. A key objective was to strengthen National Guard state 

and partner nation capabilities for defense support to civil authorities. 

At the Dubrovnik, Croatia conference in 2007, the SPP facilitated 

cooperation among former Balkan nation enemies through a regional 

disaster response exercise. Blum stated that one of his most satisfying 

achievements as CNGB was partnering all former Yugoslav republics 

with U.S. National Guard states by 2011.22 His enthusiastic expansion 

of the SPP broke through once-difficult barriers and continued the spir

of the original SPP founders as more states took on more nations as 

partners through the decade of the 2000s. This vision worked to help 

the program grow in new directions during the first years of the new 

millennium. ✦
44 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ENDNOTES

1 Master Sgt. Bob Haskell, “Psychological Warfare: Winning the Hearts 

and Minds Across the World,” The On Guard, Special Edition, September 

2002.

2 President George W. Bush, National Security Strategy of the United 

States of America, Washington D.C., September 2002, p. iv.

3 Col. Joey Booher, Chief, International Affairs, National Guard Bureau, 

quoted in Marshall.

4 James M. Lindsay , Maurice R. Greenberg and Ivo H. Daalder, “The 

Globalization of Politics: American Foreign Policy for a New Century,” 

Brookings Review, from the website of the Council on Foreign Relations, Winter 2003, and Emrys Chew, “U.S. Foreign Policy in Southeast 

Asia: From Manifest Destiny to Shared Destiny,” American Foreign 

Policy: Regional Perspectives, William B. Ruger Chair Workshop, 13-15 

May 2009, 131; accessed online, http://www.cfr.org/world/globalizationpolitics-american-foreign-policy-new-century/p6330, http://www.usnwc.

edu/Departments---Colleges/National-Security-Decision-Making/RugerEconomic-Papers/Ruger09_WEB.aspx, October 17, 2012.

5 Clinton, NSS 1994, 24.

6 News release, Guam National Guard, “Guam Guard Wraps Up 

ENCAP Mission in the Philippines,” accessed online, http://pacificnewscenter.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16803:g

uam-guard-wraps-up-encap-mission-in-the-philippines&catid=45:guamnews&Itemid=156, July 1, 2013.

7 U.S. Department of State, Fact Sheet, "U.S. Relations With Thailand,"

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, August 19, 2013; interview, Maj. 

Gen. Timothy Lowenberg, Adjutant General, Washington National Guard, 

interviewed by Derek Nestell, May 26, 2011; Staff Sgt. Jim Greenhill, 

“National Guard Helping State Partnership Improve Port Security,” 

June 6, 2009; viewed online, http://www.nationalguard.mil/news/

archives/2009/06/062309-Security.aspx, viewed May 24, 2012.

8 Interview, Maj. Gen. Raymond F. “Fred” Rees, Adjutant General, 

Oregon National Guard, interviewed by Derek Nestell, May 16, 2011; TSgt. 

Nick Choy, “Chief: Oregon – Bangladesh Partnership ‘Vitally’ Important,” 

March 12, 2010; accessed online, http://www.nationalguard.mil/news/

archives/2010/03/031510-Chief.aspx, April 1, 2012.

9 Interview, Maj. Gen. Rees, May 16, 2011. 

10 Maj. Gen. Raymond F. Rees, “Oregon and Vietnam: A Partnership 

I Never Imagined,” National Guard magazine, March 2013; accessed 

online, http://www.nationalguardmagazine.com/display_article.

php?id=1342031, June 20, 2013.

11 Interview, Maj. Gen. Thomas H. Katkus, Adjutant General, Alaska 

National Guard, and MAJ Wayne Don, State Coordinator, State Partnership Program, by Derek Nestell, Anchorage, Alaska, May 10, 2011.

12 Derek Nestell, “Alaska-Mongolia State Partnership,” draft document, 

October 2010.

13 George W. Bush, National Security Strategy, September 2002, 10-11.

14 Interview, retired Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, Washington D.C., March 22, 

2012.

15 Theresa Whalen, “Why AFRICOM?”, Department of Defense, August 

2007; accessed online, http://www.africom.mil/research/Why%20AFRICOM-Whelan-August2007.pdf, March 28, 2012.

16 Information paper, “New York National Guard State Partnership 

Program,” February 9, 2012; accessed online, http://dmna.ny.gov/spp/

spp_info.pdf, accessed April 3, 2012.

17 Lt. Col. Hank McIntire, “Utah, Morocco Partnership Excels,” National 

Guard online, November 5, 2010; accessed online, http://www.nationalguard.com/news/2010/nov/05/utah-morocco-partnership-excels; 

North Dakota National Guard, “Ghanaians Get Up-Close Look at How 

North Dakota Guard Handles Flooding,” April 15, 2011; accessed online, 

http://www.ng.mil/news/archives/2011/04/041511-flooding.aspx; 1st Lt. 

Christian Venhuizen, “Wyoming’s Partnership With Tunisia Growing”, 

U.S. Army website, March 3, 2012; accessed online, http://www.army.mil/

article/74989/Wyoming_Guard_s_partnership_with_Tunisia_growing/ , 

April 3, 2012.

18 Sgt. 1st Class Jim Greenhill, “Ham: Guard Essential to Africa Partnerships,” September 11, 2012; accessed online, http://www.army.mil/

article/87055/, July 1, 2013.

19 Interview, Maj. Gen. Howard Michael “Mike” Edwards, Adjutant 

General, Colorado National Guard, by Derek Nestell, Centennial, Colo., 

May 18, 2011.

20 Biography, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, 2008; accessed online, http://

www.ng.mil/ngbgomo/library/bio/399.htm, April 3, 2012.

21 Interview, Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, interviewed by Lt. Col. Les Melnyk, 

Washington D.C., March 22, 2012.

22 Ibid.
PARTNERSHIPS AT WORK: PROVIDING INTERNATIONAL SECURITY SOLUTION

IN SUPPORT OF DEFENSE STRATEG

CHAPTER 5
46 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Observing geographic regions and combatant commands 

in which the SPP is active, its earliest roots highlight its 

origins as a means to incorporate the nations of Central 

and Eastern Europe into NATO. SPP also supported the 

movement to incorporate the notion of the civilian control of military 

units there and in nearby Eurasia. The SPP has continued to support 

NATO, the most stable and dedicated alliance to serve the national 

interest and the goals of post-World War II America. NATO’s growth 

and stability have risen, in part, because most of the former Soviet bloc 

nations are liberalizing politically. NATO is able to perform capably 

as a war fighting entity in the post 9/11 era because of this wider 

political support.

In the Eastern Hemisphere, SPP relationships built in previous years 

helped provide access for U.S. forces to Central Asia. This proved to 

be helpful for USCENTCOM as it sought to extend logistical lines of 

communication and supply into Afghanistan after 2001. The SPP 

maintained a presence that provided readily available coordination 

with local militaries. Its emphasis on civilian control of defense helped 

governments better understand processes to manage problems on a local 

basis. Within the Western Hemisphere, USSOUTHCOM SPP activities 

have provided opportunities to learn from one another through SMEEs 

that have aided in counter drug operations in Latin America.

ABOVE: USAF Lt. Col. Walter Blankenship prepares to give an orientation 

talk about the state of Mississippi to his Uzbek military counterparts. 

Six Mississippi National Guardsmen participated in an engineer brigade 

disaster support information exchange in Tashkent, Uzbekistan in March 

2012. (Courtesy U.S. Embassy, Tashkent, Uzbekistan)

PROGRAM EXPANSION

As the benefits of the SPP became increasingly well known, non-SPP 

countries around the world began to request partnerships. As there were 

fewer states with which to partner, the CNGB allowed some states to 

take on additional partners based on their past capabilities. The first 

state to have more than one partner country was Louisiana, which first 

partnered with Uzbekistan in July 1996 and then with Belize in November 1996. Louisiana transferred its partnership 

responsibilities with Uzbekistan to its neighboring state of Mississippi in late 2011 and has 

undertaken a new relationship with Haiti, with 

which it is very familiar, having worked closely 

with the country to provide aid and supplies 

following the disastrous earthquake in 2010. 

Mississippi has also been partners with the 

South American country of Bolivia.

Several other states and territories looked to their 

respective National Guard units to provide additional partnering opportunities. Eleven states and 

Puerto Rico took on the responsibility, including 

LEFT: U.S. and Chilean Delegation on the steps 

of the Capitol building in Austin, Tex. on April 

29, 2009, with Texas State Senator Leticia Van 

de Putte (middle) showing the Proclamation 

that was presented to the Chilean delegation 

on the Senate floor. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Eric 

Wilson, Texas National Guard).
CHAPTER 5: PARTNERSHIPS AT WORK 4

ABOVE: Moroccan Soldier awaits his turn to ascend a cliff during a 

rappelling demonstration and simulated mountain rescue March 18 at 

Oukaimeden. (Photo by Lt. Col. Hank McIntire, Utah National Guard 

Public Affairs Office)

Maryland, Florida, Colorado, Ohio, California, Hawaii, North Carolina, Vermont, Texas, Michigan, and Oregon. This growth proves the 

popularity and efficacy of the SPP, which now boasts partnerships with 

more than a third of the world.1

BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS TO MEET 

CHALLENGES

New partner countries added to the SPP after 2001 had different needs 

and challenges. This group represented many countries across Africa, 

Latin America and Asia affected by poverty, war and internal strife. 

Although their political ideologies varied, the SPP provided an opportunity to understand and apply concepts such as defense support to civil 

authorities learned through their interactions with the National Guard. 

The SPP’s framework for action on poverty supported President Bush’s 

NSS of 2002. This was necessitated by decades of economic and political stagnation in many developing nations and the earlier failure to 

reduce poverty.2

 Western leaders grappling with the problem in past 

decades experienced a greater recognition of the gap in living standards 

between developed and developing nations. Such a fissure made poor 

nations susceptible to becoming bases of operations for terrorist organizations due to the ineffective governance being provided. This in turn 

made the United States more vulnerable to harm. Africa’s interests were 

now relevant to the security of the United States.3

Strong relationships that traverse international borders have served the 

SPP well in times of disaster. A key partnership in the North Africa 

region is one between the state of Utah and Morocco. Shortly after 

initiating their partnership in 2003, the Utah National Guard assisted 

Morocco following a devastating earthquake in February 2004. They 

flew nearly 20,000 pounds of donated supplies to an impoverished 

region of the country within 72 hours of the earthquake. Utah ANG 

KC-135 refueling aircraft arrived during what Utah ANG Lt. Col. Brad 

Blackner described as Morocco’s “hour of need.”4

 This established a 

foundation that continues to build successful relationships.

TEAMWORK PAYS OFF IN IRAQ 

AND AFGHANISTAN

In the early years of the Global War on Terror (GWOT), a statistic that 

validated the effectiveness of the program was the measure of direct 

A

P

i

F

BOVE: Bangladesh Maj. Gen. Abdul Wadud, principal staff officer, 

Armed Force Division, tries on for size one of the F-15 fighter jets at the 

ortland Air National Guard Base, Portland, Ore., March 8, 2010. Flankng him is Oregon Air National Guard Col. Jeff Silver (right). (U.S. Air 

orce photo by Tech. Sgt. Nick Choy, Oregon Military Department Publi

Affairs Office)
48 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

contributions by those countries allied with the United States. Countries 

involved in state partnership relationships with the United States proved 

invaluable in supporting American interests. SPP countries publicly 

announced themselves as members of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq in 

2003. Twenty-two of the 49 countries supporting the U.S. war effort 

were SPP partners.5

 This assistance proved critical as the war effort 

encountered resistance, and rotations among allied nations greatly 

stressed the force structure. Among those countries that were SPP 

partners, support came from an unlikely yet dedicated group of countries 

that only two decades earlier had been adversaries of the United States. 

By developing teamwork and trust, hallmark traits of the SPP, these 

programs accomplished many goals that the DOD sought in fighting 

the GWOT.

OPERATIONAL MENTOR AND 

LIAISON TEAMS 

Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (OMLTs) are bi-national units 

funded by USCENTCOM, initially deployed to Iraq, and currently 

used in Afghanistan to coach, teach, and mentor Afghanistan Security 

Forces (ANSF) units. Their objective is to provide a connection between 

command and control and to support the operational planning and 

employment of the Afghan National Army (ANA). The goal is a selfsufficient and effective Afghan security establishment.6

SPP relationships have helped facilitate NATO’s need for OMLTs in 

Afghanistan. NATO countries that are SPP partners deploy and serve 

alongside USA National Guard soldiers from their respective partner 

states. OMLTs were created under the NATO Concept of Operations 

first published by the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe 

(SHAPE) in 2007. Aptly, the first partnership pairing under the OMLT 

concept was Michigan and Latvia in 2008, one of the first three state 

partnerships initiated under the SPP in 1993.7

 Michigan’s TAG and 

the CHOD in the NATO country made these arrangements through 

USEUCOM and NATO. OMLT units vary in size, with the smallest 

containing no fewer than 12 U.S. personnel. OMLT rotations are at 

least six months long, and multiple rotations make up the OMLT 

pairings that are employed at corps, division brigade, and battalion and 

garrison levels.8

 Critical to the success of their mission is the ability of 

the OMLT to apply an embedded approach—living, eating, and 

working side-by-side with the ANA—to develop mutual trust and 

confidence.9

 This kind of method that cultivates shared interests has 

been established by the very core principles of the SPP in its short history. 

OMLTs, according to the DOD, are better manned than U.S. Embedded Training Teams, and allow ANA participants to concentrate on 

ABOVE: A delegation of senior military leaders from New Jersey and 

Albania joined that nation’s prime minister and the U.S. ambassador 

at a departure ceremony at the Albanian Ministry of Defense for a 

combined team of more than two dozen American and Albanian 

Soldiers who deployed to Afghanistan on June 29, 2011. (Courtesy 

New Jersey National Guard Public Affairs Office)

other mission areas. The OMLT concept has significantly helped the 

NATO war effort in Afghanistan. The first Michigan-Latvia pairing consisted of three rotations, while the next one with Tennessee and Bulgaria 

consisted of four. The partnership that contributed the greatest number 

of rotations was Ohio-Hungary, with 10 total. Other partners contributing troop strength were Indiana-Slovakia, Colorado-Slovenia, Minnesota-Croatia, New Hampshire-El Salvador, Pennsylvania-Lithuania and 

New Jersey-Albania. Indiana, Colorado and New Jersey also contributed 

to the Kandak (battalion), Combat Support, and Combat Service 

Support OMLTs. By the end of 2013, 11 partnerships that included 54 

rotations worked together in this difficult endeavor that were becoming 

known as Military Assistance Teams (MATs). This joint model served 

Allied forces well, and will continue to serve in Afghanistan.

Pairing units with partner countries has also been beneficial in mentoring 

the ANA because NATO partners would not otherwise have the ability 

to participate in the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) 

mission. The SPP has proven itself an excellent resource to help fill this 

need. These innovative force structures have contributed to the overall 

success of Afghanistan’s military forces.10

The OMLT program significantly leverages the SPP to conduct joint 

operations that enable NATO to field fully participating units in 

Afghanistan. On their own, contributing countries would not be able to 
CHAPTER 5: PARTNERSHIPS AT WORK 4

share these responsibilities as effectively. The National Guard, through 

the SPP, has filled key international security gaps that would otherwise 

require more difficult structural changes. Moreover, the SPP enables 

countries to contribute in meaningful and important ways that would 

not be otherwise possible. 

POLICE OPERATIONAL AND MENTOR TEAMS

In addition to the OMLT system, NATO has used specialized Police 

Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (POMLTs). Normally deployed 

with an Afghan unit for a minimum of six months, the POMLTs work 

an National 

0 members; for 

bled in 2010 

to provide training, mentoring, and support for the Afgh

Police (ANP). Each POMLT consists of approximately 2

example, a joint Pennsylvania-Lithuania POMLT assem

consisted of 12 U.S. and eight Lithuanian soldiers. By December 2013, 

the Pennsylvania-Lithuania joint effort shared five separate rotations 

in Afghanistan to augment the total force. There were 37 POMLTs 

working for NATO in early 2010, and this number grew to 156 training teams throughout Afghanistan’s five regions by May 2011.11 These 

POMLTs are transitioning into Police Assistance Teams (PATs).

BI-NATIONAL DEPLOYMENTS 

(REVERSE OMLTS)

Along with the specialized OMLT pairings, some of the best examples o

the evolution of the SPP are joint deployments, such as those undertake

by partners Alaska and Mongolia, as well as Vermont and Macedonia. 

Having worked with their respective National Guard state partners, the 

element of trust and confidence developed through the SPP has spurred 

partner country soldiers and airmen to request co-deployment with the

state partners to Iraq and Afghanistan. Fourteen of those SPP partners 

have co-deployed forces in 79 troop rotations from 2003–2012 ranging 

from NATO Military Assistance Teams to embedded support teams. 

Of this group, 13 are USEUCOM countries. Poland, Lithuania, and 

ABOVE: Soldiers from Slovenian Army Special Operations and the Colorado Army National Guard's 5th Battalion, 19th Special Forces Group (Airborne), 

practice explosive breaching techniques during a three-week Joint Combined Exchange Training exercise in Slovenia in June 2010. Explosive 

breaching allows Soldiers to rapidly enter a building and disorient its occupants. This maintains surprise and momentum for friendly forces and 

usually results in decreased casualties on both sides. (U.S. Army photo by Capt. Michael A. Odgers, Colorado National Guard/released)
50 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ABOVE: Croatian and Minnesota National Guard Soldiers prepare to clear 

a room during an Operational Mentoring and Liaison Team training exercise at the Joint Multinational Readiness Center. U.S. and multinational 

troops deploy together to Afghanistan as part of the NATO International 

Security Assistance Force. The team will help with the ISAF mission of 

assisting the Government of Afghanistan in establishing and maintaining 

a safe and secure environment. (Photo by Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone Walker, 

JMRC Public Affairs)

Hungary have the most co-deployments, are also part of the first 11 SPP 

relationships formed in 1993. Critical partners such as Mongolia and 

Macedonia are relative newcomers on the world stage; however, their 

sharp resolve in joining forces with the United States or NATO is a 

worthy example of military-to-military teamwork.12

CYBER CONNECTION

With the proliferation of digital devices and electronic recordkeeping, 

a large segment of the world’s population is becoming better connected 

and informed. However, criminal activity through cyberspace also 

increased drastically in the 2000s, and its international presence has 

caused great concern for the U.S. government and DOD. This strong 

concern about the use and management of computer applications 

resulted in the establishment of U.S. Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) in 2010.13 The non-geographic command is subordinate to the 

U.S. Strategic Command and has prepared to complement other DOD 

components of domestic preparedness.

Several forward-looking states are sharing ideas regarding cyber security 

with their partner countries. Soldiers and airmen have focused their efforts 

on secure government computer techniques. Partners participating in 

recent SPP cyber security workshops and exercises have included Rhode 

Island-Bahamas, Maryland-Estonia, and Georgia-Republic of Georgia. 

These exchanges continued under the auspices of USEUCOM, when 

California National Guard and Ukraine Armed Services personnel 

conducted a Cyber Security Familiarization, Awareness and Workforce 

Development Seminar in Kiev, Ukraine in March 2013. Sessions sought 

to ensure proper computer use and protocols, and aimed at defining and 

implementing an organizational Security Familiarization and Awareness 

(SFA) Program within all levels of the Ukrainian military.14 Another 

series of workshops, titled “Baltic Ghost,” were conducted among the 

original three Baltic nations, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, as well as 

their U.S. counterparts; respectively, Michigan, Pennsylvania and 

Maryland. The goal of this program is to build, sustain, and/or enhance 

cyber partnerships between USEUCOM, the Baltic states, and their 

respective state partners.15 As cyber crime and fraud have become a 

far more serious issue across the globe, these focused exchanges emerge 

as highly relevant training that benefits both the United States and 

its partners.

Such forward-thinking exercises operated by the CCMD work well with 

USCYBERCOM. Other countries also share the same concerns as the 

United States in this area. Furthermore, strong DOD cyber security 

measures put into practice allow the United States to effectively counter 

ABOVE: Roundtable discussions between members of the California 

National Guard and Ukraine Armed Services covered a variety of 

cyber security topics. The Cyber Security Familiarization, Awareness 

and Workforce Development Seminar brought together the California 

National Guard and the Ukraine Armed Services in Kiev, Ukraine from 

March 19–21, 2013 (Courtesy USEUCOM).
CHAPTER 5: PARTNERSHIPS AT WORK 5

asymmetrical threats and minimize terrorist incursions from sites outside 

the North American continent. The National Guard is the logical 

component to move this preventative measure forward internationally 

because of its existing SPP relationships around the globe.

THE SPP AS A VITAL COMPONENT OF 

MODERN DEFENSE STRATEGY

In summation, the SPP has become a valuable component of the 

modern U.S. defense strategy for three reasons:

• The SPP is an innovative, low cost, small footprint/high 

impact security cooperation program.

• The SPP builds long-term, enduring relationships with partne

countries’ militaries and builds partnership relationships. 

• The SPP brings citizen soldiers and airmen together to provid

added dimensions to military-to-military and military-tocivilian exchanges.

This is the fundamental logic upon which the program was first established in 1993. Twenty years later, that reasoning remains unchanged. 

In analyzing the aftermath of 9/11, political leaders have recognized 

that the United States must address conditions that allow terrorist 

exploitation in foreign countries. The SPP will continue to significantly 

contribute to these solutions. ✦

ENDNOTES

1 The National Guard maintains 68 active partnerships as of April 

2014. In 2011, Turkmenistan no longer had an active partnership with 

Nevada. As was the case with Utah’s partnership with Belarus, internal 

political issues no longer made it possible to continue the relationship 

between Nevada and Turkmenistan.

2 George W. Bush, National Security Strategy, September 2002, 21, 23.

3 Theresa Whalen, “Why AFRICOM?,” Department of Defense, August 

2007; accessed online, http://www.africom.mil/research/Why%20AFRICOM-Whelan-August2007.pdf, March 28, 2012.

4 Utah National Guard, Utah National Guard, History Report 2010 (Salt 

Lake City: Utah National Guard, 2011), 13; accessed online, http://www.

ut.ngb.army.mil/html/publications/History%20Report.pdf; “Utah Guard 

Gives Supplies to Morocco,” Deseret News (Salt Lake City, Utah), February 29, 2004; http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595045837/UtahGuard-gives-supplies-to-Morocco.html, accessed online March 4, 2012.

5 North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), "International Security 

Assistance Force (ISAF): Key Facts and Figures, Troop Contributing 

Nations," October 1, 2013, 2.

6 Fact sheet, “Operational Mentorship and Liaison Teams,” Army 

National Guard Manpower and Readiness (ARNG-MR), January 2012; 

accessed online, http://www.nationalguard.mil/features/ngps/2013/

docs/ARNG_Operational_Mentorship_And_Liaison_Teams_(Jan_2012)

end-of-year-review.pdf, March 29, 2012.

7 Maj. Jan Erik Haug (Norway), “The Operational Mentoring and 

Liaison Team Program as a Model for Assisting the Development of an 

Effective Afghan National Army ,”(Ft. Leavenworth: U.S. Army Command General Staff College, 2009), 121; Department of the Army, 2010 

Posture Statement, January 8, 2010 ; accessed online, http://www.dtic.

mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA502342,, https://secureweb2.hqda.

pentagon.mil/vdas_armyposturestatement/2010/information_papers/

Army_National_Guard_(ARNG)_Operational_Mentor_and_Liaison_

Teams_(OMLTs).asp, May 25, 2012.

8 Maj. Jan Erik Haug (Norway), “The Operational Mentoring and 

Liaison Team Program as a Model for Assisting the Development of an 

Effective Afghan National Army ,”(Ft. Leavenworth: U.S. Army Comman

General Staff College, 2009), 77; accessed online, http://www.dtic.mil/

cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA502342, May 25, 2012.

9 Briefing, Lt. Col. Andrew Moreshead, USEUCOM, ECJ5-NATO 

Coalition Support (NCS), January 20, 2010.

10 Fact sheet, “Operational Mentorship and Liaison Teams,” 

January 2012; NGB International Affairs, "State Partnership MAT/PAT 

Co-deployments, 2003-2013," December 2013.

11 Fact sheet, NATO’s Police Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams, 

June 2010; accessed online, http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf

pdf_2010_06/20110310_100610-media-backgrounder-POMLT.pdf, 

March 29, 2012, http://www.aco.nato.int/page26571951.aspx, accessed 

May 21, 2012; United States Central Command (USCENTCOM), "Facts on 

Lithuania: Support to the Global War on Terror," 2011, accessed online, 

http://www.centcom.mil/lithuania/, December 3, 2013; NGB International Affairs, "State Partnership MAT/PAT Co-deployments, 2003-2013

December 2013.

12 NGB International Affairs, "SPP Co-Deployments, 2003-2013: 

Numbers of Rotations per Year (Total Reflecting All Partnerships)," draf

edition, October 2013; interview, Maj. Gen. Katkus, May 10, 2011.

13 U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of 

Defense (Public Affairs), news release, “DOD Announces First U.S. Cybe

Command and First U.S. CYBERCOM Commander;” http://www.defense

gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=13551, accessed March 20, 2012. 

14 Carlos Everfield, USEUCOM International Cyber Engagement, 

“Security Awareness and Developing a Cyber Workforce,” May 1, 2013; 

http://www.eucom.mil/blog-post/24884/security-awareness-and-devel

oping-a-cyber-workforce, accessed June 20, 2013.

15 Shaun Cavanaugh, USEUCOM International Cyber Engagement, 

“Baltic Ghost: Regional Cyber Defense Cooperation between the Baltic 

States, EUCOM and the SPP,” June 10, 2013; accessed online, http://www

eucom.mil/blog-post/25209/baltic-ghost-regional-cyber-defense-coop

eration-between-the-baltic-states-eucom-and-the-spp, June 20, 2013. 
THE SPP: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM OF RECORD

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad and representatives from the state tour 

the University of Pristina Agricultural Sciences Department in Pristina, 

Kosovo, July 8, 2013 (U.S. Army photo by Spc. Samantha Parks/Released).

CHAPTER 6
I

n the early years of the program, SPP funding was dispersed across 

a variety of sources, to include the NGB, CCMDs, DOD security 

cooperation programs and agencies, non-DOD organizations, and 

Congressional earmarks. The modest cost of the program and the 

urgency of the need to engage newly independent countries, juxtaposed 

with the diligent efforts put forth by the SPP’s founders, was the impetus 

for others to provide support. State SPP coordinators, many of whom 

managed their partnership responsibilities in addition to their regular 

duties, planned and conducted all SPP events in the early years without 

the benefit of regular annual funding from NGB through DOD’s 

Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS). A program 

became a “Program of Record” once it was funded through this process, 

and SPP needed this designation to continue its success.

Up to 1998, SPP funding consisted of a mix of several different sources, 

depending on the events being conducted. Although the National 

Guard serves as the proponent of the SPP, funding for the program 

came from:

• Traditional (Geographic Combatant) Commander 

Activities (TCA)

• Joint Contact Team Program (JCTP)

• Temporary Tour of Active Duty (TTAD)

• Mobility Training Teams from Security Assistance

• Warsaw Initiative Funds (WIF)

• Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)

• Humanitarian Assistance/Peacekeeping (HA/PK)

• Joint Chiefs of Staff Exercises Program (JCSEP)1

Participating partner countries also contributed funds, depending on 

the nature of the event. Typical SPP events included senior leader visits

joint military exchanges and exercises (JMEEs) and SMEEs in a broad 

range of activities such as disaster response, consequence management, 

vehicle and aircraft maintenance, border security, combat medical, and 

defense reform. JCTP events and even some civilian-military events 

were conducted. At this stage, with no funds earmarked for the program, the annual cost of the SPP was estimated at $3.5 million, a very 

modest expense for a security cooperation program of such lasting and 

strategic importance.2

JCTP funding was phased out by the early 2000s, but other special 

funds helped continue the growth of the SPP by financing military-tomilitary exchanges in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. One program 

CHAPTER 6: THE SPP: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM OF RECORD 5

BELOW: Chart illustrating the growth and evolution of the State Partnership Program, 1993–2012, and projecting future growth from 2013. (NGB-IA)

1993–1998

25 Partnerships

SPP Part of JCTP

First State Partnerships

Non-Specific Authorities 

for Sec Coop DOD Wide

Funding Tied to CCDR 

Discretionary Funds

Developing TSCP & 

Sec Coop Strategy

SPP Management an 

Additional Duty

1999–2004

48 Partnerships

Quick Growth to 

30 Partnerships

SECDEF Sec Coop 

Guidance – Pre-GEF 

Direction to CCDRs

Congressional Earmark 

for CIV-MIL MFF 

$1-2M/yr.

Developing TSCP & 

Sec Coop Strategy

2005–2009

62 Partnerships

SPP Becomes DOD 

Program of Record: 

POM +/- $13M/yr

Significant DOD 

Guidance Changes – 

QDR/GEF, Joint Doctrine 

Morphs to BPC

DOD Review of Sec Coop 

/ T32 Funding Authorities

SPP & NG BPC Charter 

Development

SPPC Billets to States

2010–2012

65 Partnerships

Keen Congressional & 

OSD Interest – NDAA 

FY10/FY12

Impact of DTM/DODI

CCDRs & Congressional 

Support

Activities Directly Tied to 

USG Strategies & GEF EndStates – CCDR TCP/CCPs

Focus on Training & Professional Development

BAO Program

2013 & BEYOND

85+ Partnerships

CNGBI/M on SPP

Legislative Codification 

of SPP as Interagency & 

Intergovernmental tool

Integrated in Whole-ofGovernment/Whole-ofSociety Efforts

Metrics & Assessment

Regional & Multilateral 

Engagements

Career Integration

NG SPP Enterprise

State Partnership Program

A Historically Phased Perspective

SPP Perspective Across Two Decades of Change

SPP Emulating Similar Program Maturation Changes

Significant Opportunity for Building Partnership Capacity & Security Cooperation
54 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

that these targeted funds “be used to support theater engagement for 

National Guard soldiers and state civilian personnel who directly support 

the State Partnership Program and for civilian-military engagement 

 goals ...”7

 As the number of partner countries grew, this funding stream 

needed adjustment.8

 This continued through 2004, as Congressional 

appropriations stayed flat while the SPP continued to grow through 

support from U.S. CCMDs.

The MFF enabled European leaders to come to the United States and 

 see how the concept of civilian command of the military worked. MFF 

. was modeled on the Marshall Plan that brought thousands of European 

civilians to the United States following World War II to learn production 

and management skills. It was also similar to a Latin American program, 

the Partnership for the Americas, which had been proposed under the 

administration of President John F. Kennedy.9

SPP BECOMES A PROGRAM OF RECORD

A primary challenge of the SPP has been to maintain funding momentum 

and ensure proper authority for the program. National Guard states 

and territories consistently cite funding as the primary challenge for 

successful execution of the program. In addition to seeking proper 

funding for the SPP, the NGB-IA has instituted process improvements 

and standardized program management while building effective assessment metrics. The value of the SPP is well known at the highest levels of 

, the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government, but carefully and thoroughly measuring the success of the SPP leverages proper 

e levels of funding and authorities with which to continue the program. It 

lends the National Guard a powerful tool to continue funding the SPP. 

By 2007, the SPP was without MFF funding, although the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) was able to provide some end-ofyear money for the program. Making the SPP a Program of Record 

was largely due to support from CCDRs, particularly USEUCOM, 

USSOUTHCOM and USAFRICOM, all of which requested funding 

for the SPP from the JCS Strategic Plans and Policy section (J5) and 

OSD. CNGB Lt. Gen. Blum was able to obtain OSD agreement and a 

commitment to provide funding for the program.10

Following these senior leader commitments, National Guard staff 

members working in JCS J5, OSD, USA and USAF staffs, and CCMD 

staffs, worked together to get the SPP into the service budgets during es the PPBS process. This took place during Fiscal Year 2007. The SPP 

thus became a Program of Record through the collaborative efforts of 

these groups, although it took over two years and many people working 

diligently to achieve that goal.11

was the WIF, a bilateral U.S. security cooperation program that 

provided support to developing countries that were members of the 

NATO PfP program. WIF was started in 1994 to build trust and offer 

the possibility of NATO membership to countries of the former Soviet

Union.3

 WIF was the DOD’s primary tool to advance defense reform 

and institution building in PfP partner countries. WIF also promoted 

partner country integration and accession to NATO.

Other new programs enabled the United States to provide mutual 

assistance to the former Soviet republics. The CTR program, authorized

by Congress in 1992, mitigated chemical, nuclear and biological hazards

The CTR sought to dismantle and consolidate nuclear weapons 

stockpiled by the former Soviet Union. It later focused on preventing 

proliferation of these weapons from former Soviet bloc countries. This 

line of funding served to finance military-to-military exchanges in the 

region and opened a substantive security dialogue between the DOD 

and Central Asian nation defense ministries for the first time.4

As demand for the SPP expanded in Europe and beyond, budget 

considerations became paramount. In 1999, President Clinton 

announced “A National Security Strategy for a New Century” for the 

DOD. Clinton’s objective was to devote resources to “preventing 

conflicts, promoting democracy, opening markets, and containing 

disease and hunger.”5

 SPP goals supported these NSS objectives by 

promoting regional security and civilian control of the military through

military-to-military and military-to-civilian exchanges. At this juncture

SPP reached a level of serious relevance. The visibility of the program 

required the NGB-IA to press policymakers to recognize the value of th

SPP and enhance its funding stream.

From 1999 to 2003, the SPP operated primarily through annual 

budgeted earmarks from Congress of $1 million plus per year. This 

earmark, identified as the Minuteman Fellows Fund (MFF), was 

instituted as a specific allocation adopted through the efforts of Rep. 

David Hobson of Ohio and allowed a broader funding authority. The 

MFF supplemented other funding sources, but allowed for civilianto-military and civilian-to-civilian interaction because it permitted 

non-DOD civilians to support SPP events that added to building host 

nation partner capacity within their security sectors. Examples include 

the civilian director of a state’s Department of Emergency Services, 

civilian lawyers, and Customs and Border Patrol agents. MFF funding 

supported travel and per diem for these civilians, but did not pay salari

or a stipend.6

MFF was increased in 2006 to $1.5 million, after which the earmark 

ended. The House Armed Services Committee had recommended 
CHAPTER 6: THE SPP: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM OF RECORD 5

ABOVE: Graph illustrating the growth in SPP partnerships and SPP partners that have joined NATO. As noted earlier, the current number of partnerships is now 68. Turkmenistan is no longer participating in the SPP, although it was an early participant. (NGB-IA)

SPP – Partnerships Historical Context

Estonia

Latvia 

Lithuania 

Bulgaria 

Czech Republic

Hungary 

Macedonia 

Poland 

Romania 

Slovakia 

Slovenia 

Kazakhstan 

Ukraine

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

68 STATE PARTNERSHIPS 

SINCE 1993

Georgia

Croatia 

Kyrgyz Republic

Turkmenistan

Uzbekistan 

Moldova

Belize 

Ecuador 

Panama 

Peru Honduras

Venezuela

Bolivia

Jamaica Philippines

El Salvador

Uruguay

Albania

Paraguay Thailand

Guatemala

Azerbaijan

Armenia

Bosnia 

Dominican Republic

South Africa 

Nicaragua 

Morocco 

Mongolia 

Guyana 

Tajikistan

Jordan 

Trinidad & Tobago

Ghana

Tunisia

Bahamas

Serbia

Suriname

Indonesia

Caribbean RSS

Costa Rica

Montenegro

Nigeria Botswana

Senegal

Bangladesh

Chile

Cambodia

Liberia

Kosovo

Haiti

Colombia

Vietnam

Czech Republic

Hungary

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Albania

Croatia

SPP COUNTRIES JOIN NATO

Benin

Togo

Tong

In 2007, Program Budget Decision 701/703 authorized appropriated 

funds for the SPP and directed that NGB secure future funding via the 

PPBS. Thus, in 2009, the SPP became a DOD Program of Record and 

was formally recognized as a funded program that could compete in the 

2010 budget process. Other sources for funding came by way of security 

cooperation budgets of the individual CCMDs.12

The NGB SPP budget for Fiscal Year 2010 was only $12 million out 

of a total DOD budget of $664 billion. However, this did not include 

funding and support provided by the CCMDs, which fund events 

from several other sources in a discretionary manner, thus making the 

effective funding slightly higher. According to NGB estimates from the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO), the 2011 budget for the SPP 

was $13.2 million, also a minute portion of the entire DOD budget.13

This again emphasizes the SPP’s low-cost/high impact structure. 

For Fiscal Year 2014, the SPP is set to receive a total of $14.3 million 

through the USA and USAF Program Objective Memorandum (POM), 

still a 

the D

tremendous return on investment for such a small percentage of 

OD budget. The DOD’s increased emphasis on “innovative, lowcost, and small footprint approaches” in meeting the United States’ nationa

objectives bodes well for the future of the SPP. In fact, DOD fundities specifically mention the SPP as one of six programs targeted 

rvation as one of its “key partnership development efforts.”14

ternational Affairs ensures that SPP activities link to higher 

dance and that all events are approved by both the responsible 

and the attendant Chief of Mission. Through the SPP, the 

l Guard primarily conducts military-to-military engagements in 

of defense security goals, but has also leverages “whole of 

relationships and capabilities to facilitate broader interagency 

ollary engagements in accordance with existing authorities.

ncy events include some civilian involvement, and thus are don

cooperation with the CCMDs and Interagency for authorities 

ding. These events generally focus on military support to civil 

security 

ing prior

for prese

NGB In

level gui

CCMD 

Nationa

support 

society” 

and cor

Interage

in close 

and fun
56 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

BELOW: Budget projections, SPP, FYs 2010–2015. The chart depicts NGB funding for the SPP, but does not include CCMD or other funding for the SPP. 

O & M represents Operations and Maintenance; P & A represents Pay and Allowances; MILPERS represents Military Personnel. (NGB-IA)

SPP POM Funding FY10-15

ARNG P&A

ARNG O&M

ANG O&M

ANG MILPERS

*FY10 NGPA/ONMG funded internally (BE) *FY11 ONMG funded internal (BE)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014 FY 2015

authorities as in disaster response and emergency/crisis management — 

core mission areas for the National Guard. The SPP thereby provides 

valuable training for National Guard personnel while implementing 

CCMD Theater Security Cooperation activities.

While the SPP facilitates corollary events, the activities are funded 

through state nongovernmental (NGOs), private resources, or by other 

federal agencies outside the DOD. Such engagements in the past have 

included education, medical, legal, business and professional exchanges.15

ACCOUNTABILITY: VALIDATING 

THE PROGRAM

A GAO report released in May 2012 recommended the OUSDP 

develop guidance in using funds to permit civilian participation in the 

SPP. The report further noted that guidance on funding of activities 

involving civilians in SPP has been a point of confusion in prior years 

and should be clarified.16 DOD concurred and NGB worked to implement all of the GAO’s recommendations in Fiscal Year 2012.17

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) FY10 Section 1210, 

Public Law (PL) 111-84 had mandated the publication of a DOD 

issuance establishing policy for the use of funding to pay for SPP 

activities. NGB International Affairs worked closely with OSD Policy 

and the Joint Staff on clarification of SPP authorities and processes to 

be implemented in this new instruction. DOD Instruction (DODI) 

5111.20, published on 14 December 2012, established policy, assigned 

responsibilities, and provided instruction for the use of funds to support 

SPP activities. The DODI clearly defined approval authorities and roles 

and responsibilities for SPP activities, including civilian engagements. 

DODI 5111.20 thus became the fundamental source policy document 

in providing program management guidelines for the SPP.

The DODI also incorporated NDAA FY12 Section 1085 (PL-112-81), 

which provided that the Secretary of Defense may allow up to 

$3 million to be used to pay for travel and per diem costs associated 

with the participation of U.S. and foreign civilian and non-defense 

agency personnel in conducting SPP activities. Accordingly, the activity 

in which U.S. and foreign civilian and non-defense agency personnel are 

to participate must be approved by the relevant geographic Combatant 

Commander and Chief of Mission.

DODI 5111.20 has had an important impact on the management of 

the SPP in instituting appropriate management controls to ensure SPP 

activities are in compliance with funding authorities and that the event 
CHAPTER 6: THE SPP: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAM OF RECORD 5

approval and documentation process and procedures are standardized. 

NGB International Affairs, which had already instituted training for 

SPP program managers, ensures that training includes policy requirements of the DODI, particularly regarding the funding of civilians 

participating in SPP activities. NG-J52 is currently finalizing a draft 

CNGB Instruction (CNGBI) to formalize policy and responsibilities for 

planning, coordinating, and conducting activities of the NG SPP.

NGB International Affairs has developed an “activities map” that 

deconstructs sections of law to delineate more than 100 authorized SPP 

activities. Accompanying this map is an encyclopedia of funding sources 

that provides SPP coordinators a tool by which they can determine if 

proposed SPP activities are authorized and eligible for certain types 

of funding. The DODI requires each National Guard-funded SPP 

event conform to at least one of the identified sections of law and that, 

regardless of funding, they must align with CCMD Theater Security 

Cooperation and Country Cooperation Plan objectives. These objectives 

are linked to Intermediate Military Objectives and/or Lines of Activities 

appropriate to each CCMD.18

ASSESSMENT METRICS FOR THE SPP

The multidimensional nature of the SPP makes it challenging to 

develop quantitative metrics to measure the effectiveness of the program. 

However, the NGB-IA began addressing these challenges several years 

ago and is now recognized as a leader in this area among most DOD 

security cooperation programs. The value of the program as a security 

cooperation tool is well known in both the United States and overseas; 

there is ample anecdotal support for the program. Its significance to 

partner countries is strongly evident in that a third of the world has 

requested to participate. The SPP currently accounts for approximately 

44 percent of all military-to-military engagements in USEUCOM; 46 

percent in USAFRICOM; and 38 percent in USSOUTHCOM, and 

contributes significantly to the TCPs of the remaining CCMDs.19

Quantitative measures are required to show the program is meeting 

Theater Security Cooperation objectives of the CCMDs. There are a 

number of methods to measure program effectiveness. NGB-IA has 

been focusing on developing metrics using Joint Capability Areas (JCAs) 

and Universal Joint Task List (UJTL) metrics as a starting point. As a 

Program of Record it is essential, therefore, that the effectiveness of the 

SPP as one of the United States’ premier security cooperation programs 

be recognized and continued in future POM processes. ✦

ENDNOTES

1 Fact sheet, National Guard Bureau International Affairs, 1998.

2 Col. Norman E. Arflack, “The National Guard State Partnership 

Program: Is It Still Relevant?,” Carlisle Barracks, Pa., US Army War 

College, 1999, p. 6.

3 As noted in Chapter 2, the SPP’s founding preceded the Partnership 

for Peace (PfP) by a year, forming in 1993.

4 Point paper, “Warsaw Initiative Fund,” 2011; accessed online, http://

www.dsca.mil/programs/pgm/mgt/wif.pdf, June 8, 2012.

5 National Guard Bureau Legislative Liaison (NGB-LL), “A Partial Legislative History of the National Guard State Partnership Program,” draft, 

August 25, 2010; Lt. Col. Thomas “Bulldog” Simpson, “The National 

Guard State Partnership Program – A Cost Effective Yet Underutilized 

Shaping Tool,” Carlisle Barracks, Pa., US Army War College, 2001, p. 5. 

6 Retired Col. Mark Kalber, email to Col. Tracy Settle, July 2, 2012.

7 NGB International Affairs briefing slide, “SPP Funding Timeline,” 2010

8 NGB International Affairs, briefing, “State Partnership Program: 

Aligning to Today’s Environment,” January 27, 2010.

9 John Infante, NGB International Affairs, “Minuteman Fellows Fund/

Fellows Project,” July 1, 2010.

10 Col. Cathy Rodriguez, emails to Col. Tracy Settle and Mr. Jon 

McIntosh, July 2, 2012.

11 Ibid.

12 Conversation, Dr. John Finney, Special Assistant to the Chief, 

National Guard Bureau, March 1, 2012; Acquisition Community Connectio

“Program Objective Memorandum,” accessed online, https://acc.dau.mi

ILC_POMBSOY, April 2, 2012.

13 Government Accountability Office, “State Partnership Program: 

Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training Needed for National 

Guard’s Efforts with Foreign Partners,” May 2012, preface; accessed 

online, http://gao.gov/assets/600/590840.pdf, May 27, 2012.

14 Department of Defense, “Defense Budget Priorities and Choices,” 

January 2012, 6; accessed online, http://www.defense.gov/news/

Defense_Budget_Priorities.pdf, July 3, 2012.

15 Mr. Michael Braun,NGB J53, authored the activities map and 

assessment tools that are proving invaluable aids in enhancing program 

effectiveness.

16 Information brief, Mr. Jon McIntosh, International Affairs Division, 

NGB-J53; Government Accountability Office (GAO), “State Partnership 

Program: Improved Oversight, Guidance, and Training Needed for 

National Guard’s Efforts with Foreign Partners,” May 2012, preface; 

accessed online, http://gao.gov/assets/600/590840.pdf, May 27, 2012. 

To improve performance in these areas, GAO recommended four 

courses of action to the Department of Defense. This included directing 

the Secretary of Defense to instruct the National Guard Bureau to 

update program goals and objectives, in coordination with the geographic combatant commands and the embassy country teams. It also 

recommends that those same stakeholders develop agreed-upon 

definition for data collection and rules for maintaining data until a glob

data system is instituted. 

17 Ibid., pp.44-47.

18 Jon McIntosh, National Guard Bureau International Affairs Division 

(J-53 IA), “Draft document, Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 

5111.20,” which superseded the Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 

system in September 2012; sent to lead author, November 12, 2013

19 NGB-J53 International Affairs, Information Paper, June 12, 2012.
THE SPP: SECURITY COOPERATION MODEL FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

CHAPTER 7
THE SPP AND DOD’S NEW 

STRATEGIC GUIDANCE

The SPP has supported U.S. government security strategies 

and foreign policy goals through enduring partnerships 

engaged in security cooperation activities since its inception. 

The current SPP strategic plan is developed from higherlevel strategic guidance, primarily nested with the January 2012 DOD 

Strategic Guidance; Guidance for Employment of the Force (GEF); 

Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan (JSCP); and CCMD TCPs as well 

as associated individual country plans.1

 The NGB and state National 

Guard SPP strategic plans promote activities utilizing National Guard 

core mission areas and are coordinated and synchronized with the 

appropriate CCMD TCPs and Service Component plans. The SPP 

in the 21st century will continue to build relationships and conduct 

engagement activities that support U.S. national security strategies.

The SPP is well positioned in the current era of evolving security 

threats and declining budgets to serve as a model program for building 

relationships and improving cooperation with America’s allies. Since the 

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) of 2006, the DOD has emphasized the importance of working with other countries to build partner 

capacity and share the responsibilities of addressing complex security 

challenges.2

 The QDR of 2010 continues this emphasis on building 

security relationships, something the SPP has been doing now for 20 

years at low cost.3

Since 1992, the SPP has maintained a steady growth in building relationships and partner capacity around the world. The program provides 

an openness and flexibility that ensures all partner countries are treated 

equally as true partners of the United States in relationships that endure 

even as the international and regional security environments change and 

evolve. U.S. states and territories and their partner countries focus on 

one another for mutual benefit. The SPP truly is a “long-term” approac

to security cooperation and building relationships that perfectly support

U.S. national security objectives.

DOD’s January 5, 2012 Strategic Guidance highlights the importance 

of building partnership capacity through effective and efficient-minded 

approaches. Key in bringing about this need is programs constructed in 

the fashion of the SPP. The document states that “whenever possible, 

we will develop innovative, low-cost and small-footprint approaches to 

achieve our security objectives, relying on exercises, rotational presence, 

and advisory capabilities.”4

 This evaluation is highly significant, as it 

signaled new DOD priorities in sizing U.S. Armed Forces toward executing the national security strategy. In his unprecedented announcement 

of the new strategic guidance from the DOD, President Obama, along 

with CJCS Gen. Martin Dempsey and then-SecDef Leon Panetta, 

BELOW: How the SPP supports the DOD. (NGB-IA).

NATIONAL & DOD 

STRATEGIES/GUIDANCE

• National Security Strategy 

(NSS) Essential Tasks

• National Defense Strategy 

(NDS) Strategic Objectives

• Quadrennial Defense 

Review (QDR) Strategic 

Priorities

• Strategic Planning 

Guidance (SPG)

• DOD Strategy for 

Homeland Defense & 

Civil Support

• Guidance for Employment 

of the Force (GEF)

DOD PRIORITIES

• Sustain global presence

• Rebalance toward Asia while 

continuing focus on Middle 

East and maintaining 

commitments in Europe

• Build innovative, low-cost, 

small footprint approaches to 

worldwide partnerships

• Protect new capabilities and 

investments to respond to 

changing nature of warfare

• Preserve lessons, capabilities, 

and expertise, and ensure our 

technological edge

• Align size and composition of 

forces to be capable of a 

range of missions/activities

• Ensure reversibility for ability 

to surge, regenerate, and 

mobilize to counter any threat

STATE PARTNERSHIP 

PROGRAM GOALS

GOAL 1: Educate and train 

National Guard forces for 

conducting security 

cooperation activities

GOAL 2: Sustain and 

strengthen enduring 

partnerships and build 

partner capacity

GOAL 3: Advance geographic 

combatant commander and 

ambassador security 

cooperation goals

GOAL 4: Posture to adeptly 

respond to future global 

scenarios by ensuring program 

is synchronized with national, 

DOD, and Joint strategies.

CHAPTER 7: THE SPP: SECURITY COOPERATION MODEL FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 5
60 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

underscored the importance of the new strategic direction that utilizes 

the unique capabilities of the SPP.

5

One of the most significant announcements in the new guidance 

was that DOD is rebalancing forces from Europe by placing a higher 

emphasis on the USPACOM area of responsibility while maintaining 

focus on the Middle East and Southwest Asia.6

 DOD planners are 

counting on stable, maturing relationships with partner countries in 

Europe and elsewhere to continue, as this will allow for a significant 

shift in the aggregate force structure. The new guidance reflects geographical refocusing of U.S. attention in the world in light of Europe’s 

more stable status over the last 20 years. Defense budget priorities and 

obligatory choices dictate that the United States preserves key partnership development efforts, one of which is the SPP.

As it relates to the SPP and the National Guard, perhaps the most 

optimistic concept obtained from SecDef Panetta’s remarks was his 

emphasis on the term “partnerships” on multiple occasions while 

describing scenarios of future operations. Defense journalists filed 

feature stories on the program after the speech, underscoring that the 

low-cost/high-impact value of the SPP had a promising future within 

DOD plans.7

In support of U.S. higher-level strategic guidance, NGB’s vision for the 

SPP looks to “build and sustain enduring partnerships, strengthen U.S. 

and partner countries’ collective defense, enhance regional stability, and 

support U.S. global initiatives.”8

 General priorities identified in the SPP 

strategic plan 2012–2016 are as follows: 

• Maintain enduring relationships.

• Support the goals and objectives of CCMD’s Theater Security 

Cooperation Plans and Ambassadors’ Mission Strategic 

Resource Plans.

• Build and sustain partner capacity through low-cost/highimpact, small footprint security cooperation activities/events.

• Bolster multilateral engagement to improve interoperability 

and expeditionary capability.

• Focus on strengthening partner country capability, capacity 

and interoperability with U.S. forces. 

Parallel to these focal points is the further strengthening of longstanding 

partnerships in Europe where the SPP began. These priorities outlined 

in 2012 are the same as the program’s original priorities; the SPP, at the 

outset, was based on enduring principles. Such partnerships remain 

vibrant and valuable and should be maintained, especially as NATO 

continues to evolve. The SPP in Europe can expand strategically, seek 

and/or develop new funding sources, expand interagency collaboration, 

and maintain synergy with active duty partners. 

In that spirit, it is through innovative collaborations such as the one 

instituted by the Poland-Illinois partnership that exemplifies an approach 

necessary to maintain flexible, viable fighting units. Polish Land Forces 

and the Illinois National Guard of the Bi-Lateral Embedded Staff Team 

(BEST) have come together to train ANSF in much the same way as the 

OMLT or POMLT programs outlined in Chapter 5. The Illinois cadre 

organized its unit in a 16-person configuration, providing for agile 

operation control that allowed for effective military 

training to the Afghan security groups. One Illinois 

team, designated BEST A11, was awarded a unit insignia from the Polish Air Cavalry Brigade for their work. 

This recognition underscores the joint cooperation and 

the shared sense of responsibility.9

The dedication of both elements from Poland and 

Illinois, forged through their 20-year old partnership, 

has made BEST function smoothly under difficult 

circumstances.

LEFT: U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Robert E. Livingston, Jr., the 

TAG of South Carolina, speaks with Colombian Army 

Maj. Gen. Jorge Salgado, army planning and transformation, in front of a Colombian army Mi-17 search 

and rescue helicopter at Tolemaida, Colombia, Feb. 21, 

2013. Livingston visited Colombia as part of the State 

Partnership Program between South Carolina National 

Guard and the country of Colombia. (U.S. Army photo 

by Staff Sgt. Jorge Intriago/ released)
CHAPTER 7: THE SPP: SECURITY COOPERATION MODEL FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 6

ABOVE: In Ghazni Province, Afghanistan, U.S. Army Capt. Simon Wlodarski of the Illinois Bilateral Embedded Staff Team A11 receives the unit 

insignia of the 25th from Brig. Gen. Marek Sokolowski, June 22, 2013. 

The members of BEST A11 are the only foreign soldiers to ever be 

awarded the badge of the 25th Air Cavalry Brigade. (Photo by Polish 

Army Maj. Dariusz Osowski)

ABOVE: Oklahoma Air National Guard member offload supplies in Baku, 

Azerbaijan. Oklahoma Air National Guard members flew to Azerbaijan 

to participate in Operation Cherokee Angel, a medical humanitarian mis

sion aimed at improving the health and welfare of the local population 

while training and working alongside Azerbaijan medical personnel in 

May 2007. (Photo courtesy U.S. Air Force)

SPP as he evaluated a larger defense posture. In remarks made on January 5, 2012, in conjunction with the announcement of the new DOD 

Strategic Guidance, he characterized the SPP as “... a very valuable highleverage tool for us ... so we plan to build on things like [the SPP] to help 

us on these innovative approaches to other parts of the world.”10

CCDRs have also attested to the critical contributions to their missions made by the SPP. The CCDR of USEUCOM, Supreme Allied 

Commander Navy Adm. James Stavridis, testified to the Senate Armed 

Services Committee in March 2011 that the program worked particularly well in strategically located countries such as Azerbaijan, which is 

partnered with Oklahoma.

The relationships established through the SPP aided the United States 

when vital logistical routes were required through the Central Asia 

republics of Azerbaijan and the Kyrgyz Republic en route to Afghanista

in support of the U.S. and NATO operations. Adm. Stavridis pointed 

out that the Oklahoma National Guard SPP presence in Azerbaijan 

allowed consistent access along transit routes, a vital necessity. In addition

Stavridis’ positive assessment of the other 21 countries within the 

European command underscored the value of the program.11

The NGB–IA strategic plan states that “the SPP is a program that 

truly embodies a whole of society/whole of government approach. The 

National Guard interfaces and collaborates with many different entities 

within DOD, State Department, and the state.” Key stakeholders with 

which the National Guard coordinates to achieve SPP objectives include:

• OUSDP—principal staff assistant; serves as advisor to the 

SecDef for SPP policy and programs. 

• OSD Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict— 

provide guidance and oversight on the use of appropriated 

funds to conduct security cooperation and SPP activities.

• CJCS—reviews, comments, and provides coordination as 

appropriate on all proposed establishment and disestablishment 

of partnerships between a State National Guard and a foreign 

country.

• CCMDs—review and approve or coordinate, as appropriate, 

all proposed SPP activities, and forward to the relevant authority those requests for SPP activities for which the CCDR is 

not the approval authority.

• CCMD Service Components—review and coordinate on SPP 

events that support service lines of activity.

• DOS/Embassies/Defense Attaché Office/Military Groups—

develops, coordinates and plans SPP activities with the partner 

country.

• State governor’s offices—integrate all state resources and 

capabilities to offer to the partner country support of mutual 

interests (e.g., security, economic, academic and business).

During times of budgetary constraints, DOD leadership has increasingly 

taken notice of novel programs that use a proactive approach to improve 

relationships with foreign nations. In doing so, the SPP is confidently 

addressing national security challenges facing the U.S. The Vice Chairman 

of the JCS, Navy Adm. James A. Winnefeld Jr., voiced his support of the 
62 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ABOVE: His Royal Highness Prince Feisal Ibn al-Hussein greets CNGB Gen. Craig McKinley and Maj. Gen. Howard Michael “Mike” Edwards, the TAG 

of the Colorado National Guard, upon the prince’s arrival at Mwaffaq Salti Air Base, Azraq, Jordan, on Oct. 28, 2009, during the Falcon Air Meet, an 

annual bilateral exercise between the U.S. Air Force, the Royal Jordanian Air Force and other regional countries that fly the F-16 Fighting Falcon. The 

Colorado and South Carolina Air National Guard were among the 2009 participants. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Jim Greenhill/released)

PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS – 

THE QUALITATIVE POSITIVE

“We remain in your debt. As a small token of our appreciation, 

that is, my own, the Latvians who were on the flight, as well as 

the American Latvian Association, please accept the enclosed card 

... which effectively will make you an honorary member of the 

deepest 

erging 

 Dr. 

t who 

genuine 

nited 

ss made 

ed the 

d the 

ups, 

American Latvian Association ... it is given to you with the 

appreciation of your help and your efforts on behalf of our em

reborn Baltic countries.” 12

This short letter to former CNGB Lt. Gen. John Conaway from

Manfreds Munters, one of the civilian doctors of Latvian descen

accompanied the historic 1992 trip, illustrates the sentiment of 

appreciation and gratitude that a Baltic country felt toward the U

States in its time of greatest need. Many have noticed the progre

by several countries in their admission to NATO since they join

SPP in the early 1990s. Millions of citizens from nations behin

Iron Curtain in the Cold War were an assortment of ethnic gro

frequently neglected by larger powers in the world during treaty signings 

and peace talks. These emerging democracies looked to programs like 

the SPP to learn from one another and develop relationships based 

on mutual respect. Since 1993, the National Guard and the SPP have 

been instrumental in promoting long-term relationships and building 

regional security and stability in an unstable world.

ANALYZING SUCCESS

In an interview conducted in 2011, Conaway assessed why the SPP 

has become so successful. He recalled the time after the Berlin Wall fell 

and the face of Central and Eastern Europe had started to change. The 

National Guard’s marketing slogan in 1990 reflected its utility and cost 

to the American taxpayer, “Adding Value to America.” When Conaway 

took office at the end of the Cold War in 1991, he recognized that the 

changing world necessitated that the National Guard address other 

challenges to cement its role as the nation’s chief homeland defense force.
CHAPTER 7: THE SPP: SECURITY COOPERATION MODEL FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 6

ABOVE: Senior Latvian National Armed Forces Officers meet with 

Michigan Army and Air National Guard officers and non-commissioned 

officers during a tour of Michigan National Guard facilities on June 1–2, 

2013. The visiting Latvians are given a tour of the Dismounted Soldier 

Training System, a video simulation virtual reality trainer, by Intelligent 

Decisions system operator Anthony Gazvoda. Sgt. Sergey Zelenskiy 

(right) of the 1434th Engineer Company and Staff Sgt. Justin Grosinsky 

(left) of D Company, 1st Battalion, 125th Infantry demonstrate how the 

DSTS equipment is used by Soldiers training with the system. (Army 

National Guard photo by Sgt. 1st Class Jim Downen)

LEFT: Maj. Gen. James A. Adkins (center), TAG of Maryland

discusses the Maryland SPP with Gov. Martin O’Malley 

(left) during a reception for senior delegations from 

Estonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina on May 13, 2013. At righ

is CNGB Gen. Frank Grass. (Courtesy NGB Public Affairs

Conaway noted that when Cols. Gosnell and Renfroe approached him 

about the concept of a partnership program between National Guard 

states and territories and the newly independent countries of Eastern 

Europe, he asked them to construct a framework. Conaway’s belief in 

the abilities of his subordinates to work within DOD-approved goals 

furthered U.S. national security objectives following the fall of the 

Berlin Wall and collapse of the Soviet Union. His beliefs underscored 

the utility of the National Guard and its ability to help the emerging 

nations and proved critical to the long-term success of the program.

Among CCDRs, Cmdr. Gen. John Shalikashvili understood the value 

of the SPP and approved the concept. He was later able to experience 

firsthand the progress made under the program when he visited his 

native country of Georgia as it established its state partnership with 

the U.S. state of Georgia.12 Shalikashvili understood the significance 

of the SPP and vigorously fought for its retention, continuation and 

growth.14 Without this critical early support, the program may have 

ended abruptly. Another factor that allowed the SPP to become successful required the cooperation of the CCDRs and their strong support. 

USEUCOM was the first command to recognize that this program 

could form lasting security partnerships with friendly and allied nations. 

THE SPP – PROVEN SUCCESS 

FOR THE FUTURE

The SPP is a proven and valuable security cooperation tool. It supports 

U.S. national security objectives for the CCMDs; enhances DOD 

security cooperation with friendly and allied countries worldwide with 

modest funding; builds long-term relationships with partner defense 

and military institutions that promote mutual security and stability; an

focuses on meeting the partner countries’ security needs. 

The SPP strives to build strong relationships, a concept that was 

important at the time of its inception in 1993, and has become even 

more important in the post-9/11 era. The SPP’s future lies in establishin

enduring relationships with friends and allies around the world and 

in working together to develop mutual capabilities to 

ensure global peace and stability. The close relationship

developed with our partners during the past 20 years 

offer a promising future as we work together to build a 

peaceful and stable international security environment. 

Former SecDef Leon Panetta emphasized a partnered 

approach to security in “Building Partnerships in the 

21st Century.” He stressed the importance of developing innovative approaches by building partnerships 

to meet future security challenges. Broadly outlined, 

this DOD-wide initiative proposes improving security 

cooperation in three areas:
64 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

ABOVE: CNGB Gen. Craig R. McKinley addresses Army and Air National 

Guard senior service members from across the nation on November 19, 

2009, at National Harbor near Washington, D.C. (Courtesy U.S. Air Force 

by Master Sgt. Mike R. Smith)

• First, taking a strategic approach to security cooperation and 

ensuring that the United States has comprehensive and 

integrated capabilities in key regions in order to confront 

critical security challenges.

• Second, ensuring the DOD continues to enhance the 

skillsets and capabilities that are needed to build and sustain 

partnerships.

• Third, streamlining the DOD’s internal processes to improve 

security cooperation programs and to work with the DOS and 

Congress to do the same.15

Leveraging the unique capabilities of partnerships is well suited to the 

SPP. The program’s strength lies in the special nature of the National 

Guard. National Guard citizen-soldiers and airmen have civilian skill 

sets not found in the active components that make them an invaluable 

security engagement asset. Specifically, the unique nature of the 

National Guard as an organization and the unit cohesion that develops 

over years of working together with people that are known, trusted, and 

also regarded as lifelong friends are the same sorts of characteristics and 

values that make the SPP so successful.

In a recent NDU graduation speech, Gen. Martin E. Dempsey extolled 

the SPP and the trust and familiarity that flow from it. He noted that 

one of his counterparts had approached him at a NATO conference the 

month before, praising the SPP and pointing out that he has worked 

with the same group of National Guard officers since he was a major. 

Today, as a major general, that officer continues to value the relationships established over the years with his partner state.16 These close, 

personal ties have been highlighted since the beginning of the SPP; 

Americans in foreign countries have been made to feel “as if they were 

members of a family rather than official guests.”17

The SPP has become a model program for the future because 

it is flexible, innovative, low-cost/high-impact while occupying 

a small footprint. The program addresses each partner’s needs 

and is implemented on the basis of discussion, collaboration, 

and mutual benefit. The program continues to open new 

venues as the United States and its partners discuss new ideas 

and initiatives to address common critical threats. The close 

relationships developed over the last 20 years offer a promising future as partners work together to build a safe and secure 

tomorrow. In a complex and challenging security environment 

and an era of shrinking resources, SPP represents a unique 

and proven model for addressing the challenges of the 21st century.

The cost effectiveness, versatility, and enduring focus of the SPP 

provides the DOD, CCMDs, and U.S. interagency and international 

partners with the ability to address security challenges today and hedge 

against a wide range of security threats well into the 21st century. The 

program promotes defense reform and modernization, and provides a 

training venue for our National Guard forces and personnel in meeting 

Joint and Service doctrine, as well as training requirements. The SPP has 

proven itself a unique and valuable engagement asset that will continue 

to pay dividends to peace and security for many years to come, thanks 

to all the men and women from partner states, territories, and partner 

countries who have laid the foundation during its first 20 years of success. 

The National Guard’s administration of an international program like 

the SPP demonstrates innovation and wide appeal as it leverages the 

unique strengths of its organization and people. In 2009, Gen. Craig 

R. McKinley, CNGB, announced the campaign of “Adding Value to 

America.” It was a familiar theme, identical to the campaign slogan 

championed by Lt. Gen. John Conaway in 1993 when the SPP was 

being established. It became a supporting maxim for the work of the 

National Guard to bolster its role beyond that of the citizen-soldier or 

airman, and highlighted the versatile role of today’s National Guard. 

The value of the SPP is a theme that leadership has emphasized in recent 

years in many settings. This concept has resonated with the American 

public in the past. Then, now, and in the future, the National Guard’s 

mission has been and will continue to be “Adding Value to America.” 

The SPP serves as one of the pillars to this ongoing campaign.18 ✦
CHAPTER 7: THE SPP: SECURITY COOPERATION MODEL FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 6

ENDNOTES

1 NGB J53 SPP Draft Strategic Plan 2012-2016, August 2012.

2 Quadrennial Defense Review 2006, pp. 87-91. 

3 Quadrennial Defense Review 2010, pp. 57-62.

4 Office of the Secretary of Defense, “Defense Strategic Initiative,” 

January 5, 2012; accessed online, http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/01/20120105163808su0.3729451.html, June 21, 2012.

5 Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, “Remarks on the 

Defense Strategy Review,” January 5, 2012; accessed online, http://

www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/01/05/remarks-presidentdefense-strategic-review, April 1, 2012.

6 Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr., “State Partnership Program 

Emphasizes Building Relationships,” American Forces Press Service, 

January 17, 2012; accessed online, http://www.army.mil/article/72048/

State_partnership_program_emphasizes_building_relationships/, 

January 17, 2012.

7 Council on Foreign Relations, “Panetta’s Remarks on the Defense 

Strategy Review,” January 5, 2012; accessed online, http://www.cfr.

org/defense-strategy/panettas-remarks-defense-strategic-review/

p26978?cid=rss-essentialdocuments-panetta_s_remarks_on_the_defen010512, accessed April 1, 2012.

8 NGB International Affairs, “State Partnership Program Strategic Plan 

2013-2017”, June 28, 2012.

9 Press release, courtesy of Adriana Schroeder, Illinois National Guard 

historian, by Staff Sgt. Brian Spreitzer, Illinois Department of Military 

Affairs, Illinois National Guard, “Illinois National Guard, Poland Partnership Thriving, Marks 20 Years, July 11, 2013; Ibid., “Illinois National Guard 

Unit First to Receive Unit Insignia from Polish Air Cavalry Brigade (ACB), 

International Security Assistance Force, Regional Command-East (ISAFRC-E), July 14, 2013; accessed online, http://www.rc-east.com/news/

item/1673-illinois-national-guard-first-to-receive-unit-insignia-frompolish-25th-acb, July 18, 2013.

10 Adm. James A. Winnefeld, quoted in Marshall.

11 Tech. Sgt. Jon Orrell, “National Guard State Partnership Resources 

Well Spent,” April 13, 2011; accessed online, http://www.nationalguard.

com/news/2011/apr/12/national-guard-state-partnership-resources-wellspent, February 22, 2012.

12 Letter, Manfred Munters to Lt. Gen. John A. Conaway, 

January 25, 1993.

13 Interview, retired Lt. Gen. Conaway, February 16, 2011.

14 Memorandum, Gen. Shalikashvili to Sen. Sam Nunn, op. cit.

15 Former SecDef Leon E. Panetta, Dean Acheson Lecture, “Building 

Partnership in the 21st Century,” U.S. Institute of Peace, Washington D.C., 

June 28, 2012.

16 Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

National Defense University Graduation Speech, “Making Strategy Work 

Through Relationships,” June 7, 2012.

17 National Guard Bureau, International Initiatives (NGB-ZII), National 

Guard State Partnership Program: Real People, Real Success. Arlington 

Va.: National Guard Bureau, International Initiatives Division, 1994.

18 MSgt. Mike Smith, “McKinley Opens First Joint Leadership Conference,” November 20, 2009, , http://www.nationalguard.mil/news/

archives/2009/11/111909-Conference.aspx; Gen. Craig McKinley, Nationa

Guard Posture Statement 2011, Executive Summary, 2; http://www.

nationalguard.mil/features/ngps/2011_ngps.pdf, both accessed 

March 4, 2012.
66 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

APPENDICES

Appendix A-1: 

States with their respective host country partners in the SPP (listed in chronological order from first partnerships, along with 

additional partnerships immediately following), current as of April 22, 2014.

STATE COUNTRY PARTNER GEOGRAPHIC COMBATANT 

COMMAND

DATE of ADMISSION

Maryland Estonia 

Bosnia-Herezegovina

USEUCOM 

USEUCOM

April 27, 1993 

January 24, 2003

Michigan Latvia 

Liberia

USEUCOM 

USAFRICOM

April 27, 1993 

October 1, 2009

Pennsylvania Lithuania USEUCOM April 27, 1993

Tennessee Bulgaria USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Texas / Nebraska Czech Republic USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Texas Chile USSOUTHCOM November 25, 2008

Ohio Hungary 

Serbia

USEUCOM 

USEUCOM

July 14, 1993 

August 24, 2005

Vermont Macedonia 

Senegal

USEUCOM 

USAFRICOM

July 14, 1993 

January 8, 2008

Illinois Poland USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Alabama Romania USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Indiana Slovakia USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Colorado Slovenia 

Jordan

USEUCOM 

USCENTCOM

July 14, 1993 

May 24,2004

Arizona Kazakhstan USCENTCOM August 31, 1993

California Ukraine 

Nigeria

USEUCOM 

USAFRICOM

August 31, 1993 

February 1, 2006

Georgia Georgia USEUCOM October 3, 1994

Minnesota Croatia USEUCOM February 8, 1996

Montana Kyrgyz Republic USCENTCOM July 30, 1996

North Carolina Moldova 

Botswana

USEUCOM 

USAFRICOM

August 1, 1996 

January 8, 2008

Louisiana Belize 

Haiti

USSOUTHCOM 

USSOUTHCOM

November 27, 1996 

February 1, 2012

Kentucky Ecuador USSOUTHCOM November 27, 1996

Missouri Panama USSOUTHCOM November 27, 1996

West Virginia Peru USSOUTHCOM November 27, 1996

Puerto Rico Honduras 

Dominican Republic

USSOUTHCOM 

USSOUTHCOM

October 16, 1998 

March 17, 2003

Florida Venezuela 

Guyana 

Caribbean RSS

USSOUTHCOM 

USSOUTHCOM 

USSOUTHCOM

October 16, 1998 

October 9, 2003 

August 26, 2006

Mississippi Bolivia 

Uzbekistan

USSOUTHCOM 

USCENTCOM

June 9, 1999 

November 11, 2011

(Note: states with multiple partners have additional country added below first entry.)
APPENDICES 6

STATE COUNTRY PARTNER GEOGRAPHIC COMBATANT 

COMMAND

DATE of ADMISSION

District of Columbia Jamaica USSOUTHCOM October 19, 1999

Guam Philippines USPACOM February 18, 2000

Hawaii Philippines 

Indonesia

USPACOM 

USPACOM

February 18, 2000 

July 18, 2006

New Hampshire El Salvador USSOUTHCOM March 29, 2000

Connecticut Uruguay USSOUTHCOM August 14, 2000

New Jersey Albania USEUCOM January 17, 2001

New York South Africa USAFRICOM June 30, 2003

Massachusetts Paraguay USSOUTHCOM January 24, 2001

Washington Thailand USPACOM March 11, 2002

Arkansas Guatemala USSOUTHCOM June 4, 2002

Oklahoma Azerbaijan USEUCOM September 19, 2002

Kansas Armenia USEUCOM November 22, 2002

Wisconsin Nicaragua USSOUTHCOM August 25, 2003

Utah Morocco USAFRICOM September 11, 2003

Alaska Mongolia USPACOM September 26, 2003

Virginia Tajikistan USCENTCOM October 20, 2003

Delaware Trinidad & Tobago USSOUTHCOM July 19, 2004

North Dakota Ghana

Togo

Benin

USAFRICOM

USAFRICOM

USAFRICOM

August 17, 2004

February 27, 2014

February 27, 2014

Wyoming Tunisia USAFRICOM August 20, 2004

Rhode Island Bahamas USNORTHCOM April 4, 2005

South Dakota Suriname USSOUTHCOM July 26, 2006

New Mexico Costa Rica USSOUTHCOM November 6, 2006

Maine Montenegro USEUCOM November 20, 2006

Oregon Bangladesh 

Vietnam

USPACOM 

USPACOM

January 24, 2008 

November 27, 2012

Idaho Cambodia USPACOM August 4, 2009

Iowa Kosovo USEUCOM March 17, 2011

South Carolina Colombia USSOUTHCOM July 23, 2012

Nevada Tonga USPACOM April 11, 2014
68 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Appendix A-2: 

Partnerships (alphabetical by state participant)

STATE COUNTRY PARTNER GEOGRAPHIC COMBATANT 

COMMAND

DATE of ADMISSION

Alabama Romania USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Alaska Mongolia USPACOM September 26, 2003

Arizona Kazakhstan USCENTCOM August 31, 1993

Arkansas Guatemala USSOUTHCOM June 4, 2002

California Nigeria 

Ukraine

USAFRICOM 

USEUCOM

February 1, 2006 

August 31, 1993

Colorado Jordan 

Slovenia

USCENTCOM 

USEUCOM

May 24, 2004 

July 14, 1993

Connecticut Uruguay USSOUTHCOM August 14, 2000

Delaware Trinidad & Tobago USSOUTHCOM July 19, 2004

District of Columbia Jamaica USSOUTHCOM October 19, 1999

Florida Caribbean RSS 

Guyana 

Venezuela

USSOUTHCOM 

USSOUTHCOM 

USSOUTHCOM

August 26, 2006 

October 9, 2003 

October 16, 1998

Georgia Georgia USEUCOM October 3, 1994

Guam Philippines USPACOM February 18, 2000

Hawaii Indonesia 

Philippines

USPACOM 

USPACOM

July 18, 2006 

February 18, 2000

Idaho Cambodia USPACOM August 4, 2009

Illinois Poland USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Indiana Slovakia USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Iowa Kosovo USEUCOM March 17, 2011

Kansas Armenia USEUCOM November 22, 2002

Kentucky Ecuador USSOUTHCOM November 27, 1996

Louisiana Belize 

Haiti

USSOUTHCOM 

USSOUTHCOM

November 27, 1996 

February 1, 2012

Maine Montenegro USEUCOM November 20, 2006

Maryland Bosnia-Herzegovina 

Estonia

USEUCOM 

USEUCOM

January 24, 2003 

April 27, 1993

Massachusetts Paraguay USSOUTHCOM January 24, 2001

Michigan Latvia 

Liberia

USEUCOM 

USAFRICOM

April 27, 1993 

October 1, 2009

Minnesota Croatia USEUCOM February 8, 1996

Mississippi Bolivia 

Uzbekistan

USSOUTHCOM 

USCENTCOM

June 9, 1999 

November 11, 2011

Missouri Panama USSOUTHCOM November 27, 1996

Montana Kyrgyz Republic USCENTCOM July 30, 1996
APPENDICES 6

STATE COUNTRY PARTNER GEOGRAPHIC COMBATANT 

COMMAND

DATE of ADMISSION

Nevada Tonga USPACOM April 11, 2014

New Hampshire El Salvador USSOUTHCOM March 29, 2000

New Jersey Albania USEUCOM January 17, 2001

New Mexico Costa Rica USSOUTHCOM November 6, 2006

New York South Africa USAFRICOM June 30, 2003

North Carolina Botswana 

Moldova

USAFRICOM 

USEUCOM

January 8, 2008 

August 1, 1996

North Dakota Ghana

Benin

Togo

USAFRICOM

USAFRICOM

USAFRICOM

August 17, 2004

February 27, 2014

February 27, 2014

Ohio Hungary 

Serbia

USEUCOM 

USEUCOM

July 14, 1993 

August 24, 2005

Oklahoma Azerbaijan USEUCOM September 19, 2002

Oregon Bangladesh 

Vietnam

USPACOM 

USPACOM

January 24, 2008 

November 27, 2012

Pennsylvania Lithuania USEUCOM April 27, 1993

Puerto Rico Dominican Republic 

Honduras

USSOUTHCOM 

USSOUTHCOM

March 17, 2003 

October 16, 1998

Rhode Island Bahamas USNORTHCOM April 4, 2005

South Carolina Colombia USSOUTHCOM July 23, 2012

South Dakota Suriname USSOUTHCOM July 26, 2006

Tennessee Bulgaria USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Texas Chile USSOUTHCOM November 25, 2008

Texas / Nebraska Czech Republic USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Utah Morocco USAFRICOM September 11, 2003

Vermont Macedonia 

Senegal

USEUCOM 

USAFRICOM

July 14, 1993 

January 8, 2008

Virginia Tajikistan USCENTCOM October 20, 2003

Washington Thailand USPACOM March 11, 2002

West Virginia Peru USSOUTHCOM November 27, 1996

Wisconsin Nicaragua USSOUTHCOM August 25, 2003

Wyoming Tunisia USAFRICOM August 20, 2004
70 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Appendix A-3: 

Partnerships (alphabetic by partner country)

COUNTRY PARTNER STATE GEOGRAPHIC COMBATANT 

COMMAND

DATE of ADMISSION

Albania New Jersey USEUCOM January 17, 2001

Armenia Kansas USEUCOM November 22, 2002

Azerbaijan Oklahoma USEUCOM September 19, 2002

Bahamas Rhode Island USNORTHCOM April 4, 2005

Bangladesh Oregon USPACOM January 24, 2008

Belize Louisiana USSOUTHCOM November 27, 1996

Benin North Dakota USAFRICOM February 27, 2014

Bolivia Mississippi USSOUTHCOM June 9, 1999

Bosnia-Herzegovina Maryland USEUCOM January 24, 2003

Botswana North Carolina USAFRICOM January 8, 2008

Bulgaria Tennessee USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Cambodia Idaho USPACOM August 4, 2009

Caribbean RSS Florida USSOUTHCOM August 26, 2006

Chile Texas USSOUTHCOM November 25, 2008

Colombia South Carolina USSOUTHCOM July 23, 2012

Costa Rica New Mexico USSOUTHCOM November 6, 2006

Croatia Minnesota USEUCOM February 8, 1996

Czech Republic Texas / Nebraska USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Dominican Republic Puerto Rico USSOUTHCOM March 17, 2003

Ecuador Kentucky USSOUTHCOM November 27, 1996

El Salvador New Hampshire USSOUTHCOM March 29, 2000

Estonia Maryland USEUCOM April 27, 1993

Georgia Georgia USEUCOM October 3, 1994

Ghana North Dakota USAFRICOM August 17, 2004

Guatemala Arkansas USSOUTHCOM June 4, 2002

Guyana Florida USSOUTHCOM October 9, 2003

Haiti Louisiana USSOUTHCOM February 1, 2012

Honduras Puerto Rico USSOUTHCOM October 16, 1998

Hungary Ohio USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Indonesia Hawaii USPACOM July 18, 2006

Jamaica District of Columbia USSOUTHCOM October 19, 1999

Jordan Colorado USCENTCOM May 24, 2004

Kazakhstan Arizona USCENTCOM August 31, 1993

Kosovo Iowa USEUCOM March 17, 2011

Kyrgyz Republic Montana USCENTCOM July 30, 1996
APPENDICES 7

COUNTRY PARTNER STATE GEOGRAPHIC COMBATANT 

COMMAND

DATE of ADMISSION

Latvia Michigan USEUCOM April 27, 1993

Liberia Michigan USAFRICOM October 1, 2009

Lithuania Pennsylvania USEUCOM April 27, 1993

Macedonia Vermont USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Moldova North Carolina USEUCOM August 1, 1996

Mongolia Alaska USPACOM September 26, 2003

Montenegro Maine USEUCOM November 20, 2006

Morocco Utah USAFRICOM September 11, 2003

Nicaragua Wisconsin USSOUTHCOM August 25, 2003

Nigeria California USAFRICOM February 1, 2006

Panama Missouri USSOUTHCOM November 27, 1996

Paraguay Massachusetts USSOUTHCOM January 24, 2001

Peru West Virginia USSOUTHCOM November 27, 1996

Philippines Guam USPACOM February 18, 2000

Philippines Hawaii USPACOM February 18, 2000

Poland Illinois USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Romania Alabama USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Senegal Vermont USAFRICOM January 8, 2008

Serbia Ohio USEUCOM August 24, 2005

Slovakia Indiana USEUCOM July 14, 1993

Slovenia Colorado USEUCOM July 14, 1993

South Africa New York USAFRICOM June 30, 2003

Suriname South Dakota USSOUTHCOM July 26, 2006

Tajikistan Virginia USCENTCOM October 20, 2003

Thailand Washington USPACOM March 11, 2002

Togo North Dakota USAFRICOM February 27, 2014

Tonga Nevada USPACOM April 11, 2014

Trinidad & Tobago Delaware USSOUTHCOM July 19, 2004

Tunisia Wyoming USAFRICOM August 20, 2004

Ukraine California USEUCOM August 31, 1993

Uruguay Connecticut USSOUTHCOM August 14, 2000

Uzbekistan Mississippi USCENTCOM November 11, 2011

Venezuela Florida USSOUTHCOM October 16, 1998

Vietnam Oregon USPACOM November 27, 2012

Sixty-eight (68) partner countries, broken down by Combatant Commands, as of October 15, 2013:

USEUCOM – 22 USAFRICOM – 10 USCENTCOM – 5 USPACOM – 8 USNORTHCOM – 1 USSOUTHCOM – 22
72 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Appendix B: 

Public service announcement for SPP, 2009 (Courtesy NGB International Affairs)
Appendix C: 

Map of State Partners, 2014 (Courtesy NGB International Affairs)

USNORTHCOM - 1

Rhode Island / Bahamas (2005)

USSOUTHCOM - 22

Arkansas / Guatemala (2002)

Connecticut / Uruguay (2000)

Delaware / Trinidad-Tobago (2004)

District of Columbia / Jamaica (1999)

Florida / Venezuela (1998)

Florida / Guyana (2003) USAFRICOM - 10 USPACOM - 8

Florida, Virgin Is. / Regional Security System (2006) California / Nigeria (2006) Alaska / Mongolia (2003)

USEUCOM - 22

Alabama / Romania (1993) Michigan / Latvia (1993) 68 State Partnerships

California / Ukraine (1993) Minnesota / Croatia (1996)

Colorado / Slovenia (1993) New Jersey / Albania (2001)

Georgia / Georgia (1994) North Carolina / Moldova (1996)

Illinois / Poland (1993) Ohio / Hungary (1993)

Indiana / Slovakia (1993) Ohio / Serbia (2005) USCENTCOM - 5

Iowa / Kosovo (2011) Oklahoma / Azerbaijan (2002) Arizona / Kazakhstan (1993)

Kansas / Armenia (2002) Pennsylvania / Lithuania (1993) Colorado / Jordan (2004)

Maine / Montenegro (2006) Tennessee / Bulgaria (1993) Mississippi / Uzbekistan (2012)

Maryland / Estonia (1993) Texas, Nebraska / Czech Republic (1993) Montana / Kyrgyz Republic (1996)

Maryland / Bosnia (2003) Vermont / Macedonia (1993) Virginia / Tajikistan (2003)

Kentucky / Ecuador (1996) New York / South Africa (2003) Guam, Hawaii / Philippines (2000

Louisiana / Belize (1996) North Carolina / Botswana (2008) Hawaii / Indonesia (2006)

Louisiana / Haiti (2011) North Dakota / Ghana (2004) Idaho / Cambodia (2009)

Massachusetts / Paraguay (2001) North Dakota / Togo (2014) Nevada / Tonga (2014)

Mississippi / Bolivia (1999) North Dakota / Benin (2014) Oregon / Bangladesh (2008)

Missouri / Panama (1996) Michigan / Liberia (2009) Oregon / Vietnam (2012)

New Hampshire / El Salvador (2000) Utah / Morocco (2003) Washington / Thailand (2002)

New Mexico / Costa Rica (2006) Vermont / Senegal (2008)

Puerto Rico / Honduras (1998) Wyoming / Tunisia (2004)

Puerto Rico / Dominican Rep. (2003)

South Carolina / Colombia (2012)

South Dakota / Suriname (2006)

Texas / Chile (2008)

West Virginia / Peru (1996)

Wisconsin / Nicaragua (2003)

APPENDICES 7
74 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Appendix D: 

Signatories, NATO Partnership for Peace, established 1994

Albania

Armenia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belarus

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bulgaria

Croatia

Czech Republic

Estonia

Finland

Georgia

Hungary

Ireland

Kazakhstan

Kyrgyz Republic (formerly Kyrgyzstan)

Latvia

Lithuania

Macedonia

Malta

Moldova

Montenegro

Poland

Romania

Russia

Serbia

Slovakia

Sweden

Switzerland

Tajikistan

Turkmenistan

Ukraine

Uzbekistan
APPENDICES 7

Appendix E: 

SPP Partner Country Relationships: NATO Members in the SPP, 1993–2013

STATE/TERRITORY PARTNER COUNTRY SPP MEMBERSHIP 

DATE

NATO MEMBERSHIP 

DATE

Texas, Nebraska Czech Republic 1993 1999

Ohio Hungary 1993 1999

Illinois Poland 1993 1999

Tennessee Bulgaria 1993 2004

Maryland Estonia 1993 2004

Michigan Latvia 1993 2004

Pennsylvania Lithuania 1993 2004

Alabama Romania 1993 2004

Indiana Slovakia 1993 2004

Colorado Slovenia 1993 2004

Minnesota Croatia 1996 2009

New Jersey Albania 2001 2009

Appendix F: 

SPP Partner Countries Aspiring to join NATO

STATE/TERRITORY PARTNER COUNTRY SPP MEMBERSHIP DATE

Vermont Macedonia 1993

Georgia Georgia 1994

Maryland Bosnia and Herzegovina 2003

Maine Montenegro 2006
76 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

Appendix G: 

Directors of NGB International Affairs and its Predecessor Organizations, 1991–2013

DIRECTOR AND MILITARY AFFILIATION DATES OF SERVICE OFFICE OFFICE SYMBOL

Col. P. Wayne Gosnell, US Army (USA) 1991-1994 Office of International Initiatives NGB-ZII

Col. A. Vance Renfroe, US Air Force (USAF) 1994-1996 Office of International Affairs NGB-IA

Col. Robert James, USA 1996-2000 Office of International Affairs NGB-IA

Col. Virgil "Lee" Iams, USAF 2000-2001 Office of International Affairs NGB-IA

Col. Mark Kalber, USAF 2001-2005 Office of International Affairs NGB-IA

Col. Cathy Rodriguez, USAF 2005-2007 Office of International Affairs NGB-IA

Col. Randy Everett, USA (Acting Director) 2007-2008 Office of International Affairs NGB-IA

Col. Cathy Rodriguez, USAF 2008-2010 Office of International Affairs NGB-IA

Col. Kurt Vogel, USAF 2010-2011 Office of International Affairs NGB-IA

Col. Joey Booher, USAF 2011-2012 Office of International Affairs NGB-IA

Col. Michael Norton, USAF 2013-present Office of International Affairs NGB-IA
SPP MILESTONES 7

ABOVE: Air Force Gen. Craig McKinley, the chief of the National Guard 

Bureau, poses with members of the Maryland National Guard after 

a town hall meeting with troops at MFO South Camp near Sharm El 

Sheik, Egypt, on Oct. 21, 2011. Maryland National Guard members were 

deployed to the Sinai in support of the international peacekeeping forc

(U.S. Army National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Jim Greenhill/released)

ABOVE: Moldovan stamp showing 

the Partnership for Peace signing 

ceremony, March 1994. (Moldovan 

government courtesy photo)

• November 1992: First senior leader visit to potential partner 

countries. CNGB Lt. Gen. John Conaway leads interagency team to 

Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

• January 1993: President Bush’s National Security Strategy (NSS) 

provided guidance of a “whole of society” approach to security 

cooperation.

• April 1993: First partnerships recognized, Michigan-Latvia, 

Pennsylvania-Lithuania, and Maryland-Estonia.

• July 1993: First USCENTCOM partner country, Arizona-Kazakhstan.

• October 1993: Precursor to the present-day Bilateral Affairs Officer 

(BAO), a full-time Army National Guard soldier embedded in the 

U.S. Embassy of the partner country, called Military Liaison Teams 

(MLT), were deployed in USEUCOM.

• January 1994: Partnership for Peace (PfP), NATO program, was 

launched after initial formulation in 1993, with 28 former Warsaw 

Pact countries and their territorial provinces as signatories.

• July 1994: President Clinton’s 

NSS supports the expansion of 

NATO into Eastern Europe and 

Central Asia.

• October 1994: Lt. Gen. 

Edward Baca becomes the new 

CNGB. Baca continues the 

focus on international security 

engagements for the National 

Guard and expands the program 

into USSOUTHCOM and 

further into Eastern Europe.

• 1994: First civilian-military exchange between Maryland and Estonia. 

Maryland Governor Parris Glendening offered exchanges with world 

class medical facilities in Maryland at Johns Hopkins University and 

the University of Maryland system to assist in building the Estonian 

medical establishment.

• January 1995: The National Guard is assigned as peacekeepers in 

Sinai with the U.S. Army and U.S. Army Reserve as part of the 82nd 

Airborne Division, 4th Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment. 

Eventually, the National Guard would replace regular Army units in 

the Sinai in 2002 (see photo, next page, and January 2002 entry).

SPP MILESTONES, 1992 – 2012

• 1996: First partnerships in countries administered without a Ministry 

of Defense: Missouri-Panama, Louisiana-Belize, Kentucky-Ecuador, 

and West Virginia-Peru. 

• November 1996: First state with multiple SPP partner countries, 

Louisiana pairs with Belize and Uzbekistan (later assigned a partnership with Mississippi).

• November 1996: First USSOUTHCOM partnership established, 

Missouri-Panama. Missouri had previously sent National Guard 

troops to Panama in 1985 as part of Operation Blazing Trails (Fuertos 

Caminos), to construct bridges, roads, medical clinics, and schools.

• March 1999: Three initial SPP partner nations gain full membership 

in NATO: Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.

• February 2000: First USPACOM partner country, Philippines, 

partners with Guam and Hawaii. Partnership arrangement continues

ABOVE: Ceremony to mark the accession of the Czech Republic, Hungar

and Poland to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at NATO Headquarters in Brussels on March 16, 1999. (Courtesy NATO)
BELOW: GEN (USA) Frank J. Grass, Chief, National Guard Bureau, meets 

with officials from Central Asian republics participating in the State 

Partnership Program. The first active regional partnership was established 

in 1993, between the state of Arizona and Kazakhstan. This delegation 

included representatives from the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan 

and Uzbekistan, who conferred with GEN Grass about the positive 

security relationships forged from SPP. The meeting took place at the 

Pentagon, Washington, D.C., on September 9, 2013. (U.S. Army photo by 

Sgt. 1st Class Jim Greenhill)

ABOVE: During a transformative time throughout the Middle East credited 

mostly to the use of social media, the first-ever U.S. Central Command 

Public Affairs exchange with the Jordan Armed Forces occurred March 

23–30, 2012 as part of the SPP. Members of the Jordanian Armed 

Forces, Jordanian Media, and Colorado National Guard pose for a group 

shot (Photo courtesy Jordan Armed Forces/released)

RIGHT: During the Ohio National 

Guard’s Operational Mentor and 

Liaison Team homecoming ceremony in Solnok, Hungary on Aug. 

15, 2009, Maj. Gen. Gregory L. Wayt, 

Ohio’s adjutant general, presented 

Capt. Robert H. Paley with an award 

for his hard work and dedication. 

The team spent the last year working together with Hungarian soldiers 

training the Afghan National Army 

forces. (Department of Defense 

photo by 1st Lt. Nicole Ashcroft)

78 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

• April 2011: SPP partner country Jordan participates in Operation 

Freedom Falcon as a full ally of the United States and NATO in 

support of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 to remove Col. 

Muammar Gaddafi from power in Libya.

• September 2011: National Guard Bureau is recipient of the Dr. 

William J. Perry Award, given annually by the Center for Hemispheric 

Defense Studies, Ft. McNair, Washington D.C., for its administration 

of the USSOUTHCOM SPP and its contribution to stability in the 

Western Hemisphere; specifically, in the regions of the Caribbean, 

Central and South America. 

• January 2012: DOD releases a new Defense Strategic Guidance 

document that cites SPP as a model security cooperation program 

through its small footprint and innovative operation with low costs.

• November 2012: The Oregon National Guard announces a partnership with Vietnam in a historic pact, a country with which the United 

States fought its longest war from 1 955 to 1973. 

• April 2014: The North Dakota National Guard and Nevada 

National Guard announce new SPP partnerships with Togo and 

Benin, as well as Tonga, respectively. These w

tion with USAFRICOM and USPACOM.

ill operate in coordina-

• January 2002: The 2nd Battalion, 153rd Infantry Regiment, Arkansas 

National Guard, assigned to the Sinai Peninsula on peacekeeping duty 

in Operation Noble Eagle (ONE). This was the first deployment of 

National Guard forces to the Sinai during ONE; the 2-153 received a 

“no-notice” mobilization order activated in October 2001.

• April 2003: Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum confirmed as new CNGB; 

oversees the addition of 20 new partnerships in his tenure through 

2008, the most of any chief to this point.

• September 2003: First USAFRICOM partner country, UtahMorocco (USAFRICOM initiated its mission in 2007). 

• March 2004: Seven original SPP partner countries gain full NATO 

membership (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia 

and Slovenia), bringing a total of 10 SPP countries in NATO.

• May 2004: First partner country in the Middle East, ColoradoJordan (USCENTCOM).

• April 2005: First USNORTHCOM partner country, 

Rhode Island-Bahamas.

• February 2009: First SPP co-deployed Operation Mentor Liaison 

Team (OMLT) in support of ISAF and Operation Enduring Freedom 

(OEF) deploys for six months to train Afghan National Army (ANA) 

soldiers (Ohio-Hungary).

• April 2009: Two SPP partner countries gain full NATO membership 

(Croatia, Albania); total of SPP nations in NATO increases to 12.

• October 2009: SPP becomes a Department of Defense Program 

of Record.

• September 2010: First peacekeeping co-deployment between partner 

countries sharing an SPP state. Serbia and Hungary, SPP partners with 

Ohio, co-deployed as a joint peacekeeping force to Cyprus in support 

of the UN Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP).
ACRONYMS

AFP Armed Forces of the Philippines

ANA Afghan National Army

ANP Afghan National Police

ANG Air National Guard

ARNG Army National Guard

BAO Bilateral Affairs Officer

BEST Bilateral Embedded Staff Team

BPC Building Partnership Capacity

CCDR Geographic Combatant Commander

CCMD Geographic Combatant Command

CCP Country Cooperation Plan

CHOD Chief of Defense

CINC Commander-in-Chief

CINCSOUTH Commander-in-Chief, United States Southern Command

CIV Civilian

CJCS Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

CNGB Chief, National Guard Bureau

CNGBI/M Chief, National Guard Bureau Instruction or Manual

CTR Cooperative Threat Reduction

DOD Department of Defense

DODI Department of Defense Instruction

DOS Department of State 

DSCA Defense Support to Civil Authorities

DTM Directive Type Memorandum 

EU European Union

FAM Familiarization Visits

GAO Government Accountability Office

GEF Guidance for Employment of the Force

HA/PK Humanitarian Assistance and/or Peacekeeping

ISAF International Security Assistance Force

IWG Interagency Working Group

JCA Joint Capability Areas

JCS Joint Chiefs of Staff

JCSEP Joint Chiefs of Staff Exercises Program 

JCTP Joint Contact Team Program

JMEE Joint Military Exercises and Exchanges

JMETL Joint Mission Essential Task List

JMT Joint Military Training

JSCP Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan

MAG Military Airlift Group

MAT Military Assistance Team

MBCI Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

METF Mongolian Expeditionary Task Force

MIL Military

MLT Military Liaison Teams

MFF Minuteman Fellows Fund

MND Multinational Division

MOD Ministry of Defense/Defence

MSCA Military Support to Civil Authorities

MTT Mobility Training Teams

NACC North Atlantic Cooperation Council

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NCO Non-Commissioned Officer

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

NDS National Defense Strategy

NDU National Defense University

NG National Guard

NGB National Guard Bureau

NGB-IA National Guard Bureau International Affairs Division

NGB-J53 National Guard Bureau, J53 (Joint Staff numeric designation)

NGB-ZII National Guard Bureau Office 

of International Initiatives

NGO Non-governmental Organization

NSS National Security Strategy

OAS Organization of American States

ODC Office of Defense Cooperation

OEF Operation Enduring Freedom

OIF Operation Iraqi Freedom

OMLT Operational Mentor Liaison Team

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

OUSDP Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Polic

PAT Police Assistance Team

PfP Partnership for Peace

POM Program Objective Memorandum

POMLT Police Operational Mentor Liaison Team

PPBS Planning, Programming and Budgeting System

PPBES Planning, Programming, Budgeting and 

 Execution System

PPF Panamanian Public Forces 

QDDR Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review

QDR Quadrennial Defense Review

RSS Regional Security System

SACEUR Supreme Allied Commander, Europe

SANDF South African National Defense Force

SecDef Secretary of Defense

SFA Security Familiarization and Awareness

SHAPE Supreme Headquarters Allied Power Europe

SME Subject Matter Expert

SMEE Subject Matter Expert Exchange

SPG Strategic Planning Guidance

SPP State Partnership Program

SPPC State Partnership Program Coordinator

TAG The Adjutant General

TCA Traditional (Geographic Combatant) 

 Commanders Activities

TCP Theater Campaign Plans

TCT Traveling Contact Team

TSCP Theater Security Cooperation Plan

TTAD Temporary Tour of Active Duty

UCMJ Universal Code of Military Justice

UJTL Universal Joint Task List

UN United Nations

UNFICYP United Nations Peacekeeping Force, Cyprus

USA United States Army

USAF United States Air Force

USAFRICOM United States Africa Command 

USAID United States Agency for International Developmen

USAREUR United States Army, Europe

USCENTCOM United States Central Command

USCYBERCOM United States Cyber Command 

USEUCOM United States European Command

USG United States Government

USMA United States Military Academy

USMILGRP United States Military Group

USNORTHCOM United States Northern Command

USPACOM United States Pacific Command

USSOUTHCOM United States Southern Command

VCNGB Vice Chief, National Guard Bureau

WIF Warsaw Initiative Fund

ACRONYMS 7
80 THE NATIONAL GUARD STATE PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM

BIOGRAPHIES

WILLIAM B. BOEHM

William B. (Bill) Boehm grew up in Alamogordo, N.M. In his youth he 

gained an appreciation for the history of the desert of the Southwestern 

United States, frequented by figures like the Billy the Kid, Pat Garrett, 

Albert B. Fall, Oliver Lee, John J. Pershing and “Pancho” Villa. 

After completing undergraduate work at the University of New Mexico 

in Albuquerque in 1987, Boehm later enrolled at the graduate history 

program at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces in 1994. His 

interest focused on the arrival of the railroads and the military’s presence 

in southern New Mexico and west Texas. His master’s thesis detailed 

the impact of the El Paso region’s railroads during the first years of the 

Mexican Revolution from 1910 to 1916. Boehm received an M.A. in 

History from New Mexico State University in 1997.

Boehm worked on various projects that focused on Fort Bliss, White 

Sands Missile Range, and Holloman Air Force Base. He later joined the 

staff of the New Mexico State University Library in 2000, working as an 

archivist and curator. Boehm started work with the Historical Services 

Branch of the National Guard Bureau in Arlington, Va. in 2006, as 

an archivist and historian. He has contributed numerous articles on 

Guard history and wrote Quarters One: The Story of a Historic Home and 

its Residents (2012). He was also lead author of In Katrina’s Wake: The 

National Guard on the Gulf Coast, 2005 (2010). 

STEVEN STEARNS

Retired USAF Chief Master Sgt. Steven L. Stearns has spent almost 

40 years working as a public historian. A graduate of the University of 

Wisconsin system (B.A., B.S., M.Ed.), Stearns spent nine years working 

in living history museums interpretation before joining the National 

Guard Bureau as the ANG senior enlisted historian in 1984. Stearns has 

vast experience in National Guard history matters in that time through 

the present.

From 2004 to 2006, Stearns 

served as the NGB project 

manager for the Lewis and 

Clark Bicentennial Commemoration. He has also 

worked with the more than 

40 National Guard museums 

located in various states and 

territories.

DEREK NESTELL

Derek R. Nestell attended 

Eastern Michigan University 

receiving a B.A. in History and 

earned an M.L.S. from Wayne 

State University in Detroit. 

Presently, he is employed as 

the archivist for the National 

Guard Bureau Historical Services Branch.
PUBLISHED BY HISTORICAL SERVICES BRANCH, PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU, ARLINGTON VA, 2014