text: Chapter 2
  differences potentially disrupt progress and obscure results when assessing capability. Capability and
  capacity standards that theater army planners may perceive as inadequate might be perfectly acceptable to
  the partner force.
  2-52. Determining the appropriate balance of qualitative and quantitative assessments of the partner FSF
  within the CCP and country plans is critical. At the strategic and operational levels, assessments generally
  become more qualitative, and availability of hard data may drive the balance of quantitative assessments.
  2-53. Assessing a partner nation force’s “will to fight” is critical across the competition continuum, but
  especially so in crisis and conflict. A partner nation’s military leaders, morale, cohesion, discipline, culture,
  and history are all important factors to consider when gauging will to fight. Understanding these factors is
  essential to assessing combat effectiveness because it may directly influence U.S. national and theater
  strategy and the commitment of future resources. Assessing will to fight is largely subjective as it deals with
  the very complex phenomenon of human nature. As such, the assessment process may require a mixed-
  method approach that uses a variety of tools, techniques, and metrics that may include simulations, modeling
  (including agent-based and parametric), forecasts, experimentation, wargames, case studies, data from one-
  on-one interviews, focus groups, surveys, and direct observation.
  2-54. SFA planners and practitioners must also account for the “lag time” in the assessment process, the
  methodology, and the causal link between an effort or set of efforts (the cause) and the results achieved (the
  effect). It is important to understand that conclusions on causal linkages should not be drawn prematurely,
  and the combatant command’s expectations for progress should be realistic in terms of when outcomes and
  end states will be realized.
  2-55. It is important to remember that assessments not only drive activity development by the theater army
  SFA planners, but ultimately serve to inform decision making by the combatant command and country team.
  Commanders must provide guidance and provide buy-in to the methodology. SFA planners within the
  combatant commands and theater armies will need to maintain flexibility, conduct proper assessment training
  across all staff elements, and invest extensive time and effort in assessment resources to ensure success.
  SFA DEVELOPMENTAL ACTIVITIES
  2-56. The United States provides a capability that a foreign defense establishment may not have the ability
  to provide on its own. SFA activities and missions are planned, coordinated, and executed across the
  executive, generating, and operating functions in permissive and uncertain environments. In some cases, the
  United States provides SFA as a bridging solution until the host nation organizes and develops the capability
  on its own. The United States can provide SFA until U.S. objectives are met, or until the foreign defense
  establishment develops the capability shortfall. In other instances, the United States may provide SFA to
  meet specific U.S. and foreign defense establishment requirements without the intent of organizing that
  capability within that partner nation’s foreign defense establishment. In these cases, an enduring foreign
  defense establishment capability is neither required, nor is it in the best interest of the United States.
  2-57. General SFA developmental activities are organize, train, equip, build, and advise (OTEBA). Each
  element of these activities can be used to develop, change, or improve the capability and capacity of the
  partner FSF, as well as enable overall interoperability. By assessing the FSF through the lens of U.S. interests
  and objectives, coupled with shared interests of multinational partners, U.S. forces can determine which areas
  within the OTEBA construct to use to improve the FSF to the desired level of capability and capacity. SFA
  planners should determine what is in the best interests of the multinational partners involved, or “what is
  good enough” to achieve shared objectives. In essence, U.S. forces assess the partner FSF against desired
  capabilities and then develop an OTEBA plan to help a partner FSF build that capability and capacity.
  2-58. An initial baseline assessment of partner FSF capability and capacity is essential to the development
  of initial OTEBA activity design. Assessment activities are critical in determining quantitative and qualitative
  progress of the partner FSF toward a desired end state.
  ORGANIZE
  2-59. Organization of a partner FSF includes all activities taken to create, improve, and integrate doctrinal
  principles, organizational structures, and personnel management. This may include doctrine development,