This is coolbert:
"Unlike the Pentagon’s enormous, overly bureaucratic, and inflexible security cooperation enterprise, the CIA [Central Intelligence Agency] doesn’t have a one-size-fits-all blueprint."
CIA armies better defined as CIA paramilitary?
2506 = Assault brigade Cuban exiles, Bay of Pigs.
From the Foreign Policy Internet web site.
"The failure of the Afghan army is a reminder that Pentagon-led security cooperation programs are more expensive and less effective than those led by spies."
NOT SPIES BUT THE PARAMILITARY PERSONNEL OF THE AMERICAN CIA!
The American military organizing and equipping foreign armies the results often either disastrous or much less than satisfactory as originally envisioned.
A major reason for CIA success being that paramilitary rather than conventional army organization and equipment tends to be much more simple and less sophisticated? Paramilitary logistics less a consideration other than combat arms, logistics needs not to be so sophisticated and highly developed?
"The basic weapon of choice for those units that the CIA has historically supported tends to be the cheaper and easier-to-use Kalashnikov rifle, with heavier weapons including machine guns and anti-armor being likewise from Russian-made inventories. Another advantage is that the weapons and their ammunition are equally almost always compatible with those being fielded by their enemies, should rounds or replacements need to be found on the battlefield. Even light artillery and aviation assets (generally, rotary wing) derived from Russian models are likely to be cheaper and easier to maintain."
Recall too the CIA disastrous and high embarrassing effort too overthrow the regime of Fidel Castro using a Cuban exile paramilitary "army". CIA hardly immune from failure.