Various strong states are avoiding direct conflict and are engaging in the low-risk mission of train, advise, and assist (TAA) and equipping a military/militia partner/ally to pursue certain objectives and national interests.
[2] For example, AFRICOM, the US’s regional military command in Africa seeks to fulfill security objectives such as stability and counter-terrorism but also democracy and economic growth.
High poverty situations may preclude the possibility of raising the standard of living through the transfer of money, because recipient nations lack the infrastructure and political action needed to convert the aid into welfare.
When targeted improperly, military aid can fuel repression or instability by giving warring parties more resources to fight with or propping up illiberal governments.
Governments that receive large levels of external sponsorship may be empowered to crack down on a dissident civilian population, and lose incentive for reform.
"[10] Dube and Naidu conclude that the overall effect of military aid is to increase the state strength of the recipient, but that this may also include empowering state-linked paramilitary operations.
As a result, paramilitary groups have significantly higher documented rates of human rights abuses including torture and extrajudicial killings.