This study attempts to determine how well the IADB has performed it s mission within the inter-American security system. The investigation relies on historical analysis of the Board's performance over the past four decades, application of alliance politics theory, and interpretation of a questionnaire administered to both military and non-military students from the United States and Latin America. Investigation reveals that the hemispheric security environment and the nature of the threat have changed tremendously during the period since the founding of the oldest international military organization in the Free World. Consequently, the Board has had to adapt, seeking new roles and functions while some of its members question its basic mission of planning for an external threat to the Western Hemisphere. Attempts have been made by the IADB to establish a more formal institutional link with the Organization of American States, but these have so far proven futile due to insurmountable political and bureaucratic hurdles. The board has performed many useful tasks, but usually in obscurity, due in part to contradictory security visions among its member nations and also to political intransigence stemming from distrust of the Latin American military. Looming over the entire inter-American military system is the fact of traditional dominance by the United States. Elements of this Imbalance have begun to dissipate in recent years, but the resulting divisive tendencies have made it more difficult to maintain a sense of solidarity. The study concludes that the IADB should be retained, but revitalized to fit the security needs and the political tenor of the times. Specific recommendations are offered in the final chapter, to include: (1) A closer, more formal relationship between IADB and the OAS, or at least a formal charter for the Board delimiting the complementary roles of the two organizations: (2) establishment of an Inter-American Security Council to replace the impoten
