McNair Paper Number 44, Chapter 3,  October 1995
**THE STRUCTURE OF U.S. FOREIGN MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING**
The IMET program is not the only funding source for U.S. professional military education and technicaltraining.  Others include a recently introduced grant program in the State Department'scounternarcotics account, as well as the traditional option to purchase instruction through ForeignMilitary Sales (FMS).  In essence, the United States implements a dual track strategy of selling foreignmilitary training to wealthier states and providing grant aid to those unable to afford such training.  
	For the first group, countries use FMS, often at lower rates, to purchase technical trainingrelating to the operation, maintenance, and management of equipment purchased from the Army, AirForce, and Navy (including Marine Corps and Coast Guard programs).  Interest in proficiency trainingis less prevalent today; many states now have their own technical schools or have purchased militarysystems and material from countries other than the United States and use their training programs. The purchase of U.S. professional military education for junior and middle-grade officers withleadership potential has increased significantly, however.  Courses on defense resource managementare heavily enrolled.  Over the last 7 years, the Foreign Military Sales alternative has been the moreheavily traveled path in strengthening bilateral military relations with friends and allies.  Table 1, forexample, indicates that over 50 percent of visiting Army students receive instruction funded by FMS. (The percentage of Navy and Air Force students is even higher--over 80 percent.)	
	The second track, grant International Military Education and Training, with annual guidelinesdeveloped by authorizing and appropriating committees, provides direction for the management ofall foreign training through the Defense Security Assistance Agency's (DSAA) *Security AssistanceManagement Manual*.(Note 8)  As a result, the term IMET hasbecome both the acronym for an important formal grant program and a commonly *misapplied*designator for the entire foreign training program (e.g., as a designator for the FMS component).  Forpurposes of evaluation, it is difficult to isolate IMET-funded experiences from other programs.  Theonly identifier is the limited financial resources of countries chosen by the State Department toreceive IMET assistance.  This standard is unreliable, however, because, for reasons of policy, somestates receive a small allocation of funds in order to purchase reduced-cost training.  The principalprograms--IMET and FMS--accomplish comparable objectives, sometimes for the same country.  Studentsattend the same courses, experience U.S. culture together, have comparable opportunities to applytheir training, and rise to positions of prominence later in life.  As this study suggests, U.S. policysuccesses stemming from access to  U.S. military education are the results of the entire U.S. foreignmilitary education and training system.  To avoid confusion, this report uses "foreign militaryeducation and training," "security assistance training," and "foreign military education" as terms forthe larger system of which IMET is a part.

**TABLE  1.  *International military student training spaces annual total, FY 1988-1994: U.S. Army*

Fiscal Year
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
Foreign MilitarySales
$5051 (50%)
5297 (54%)
4488 (51%)
4812 (54%)
3815 (57%)
3875 (58%)
5825 (75%)

IMET Funding
$4998
4594
4350
4172
2889
2776
1971

*The drop between FY 1991 and 1992 reflects a reduction in the IMET appropriation and a temporary reduction in thenumber of foreign training spaces and U.S. military courses offered during and immediately after Operations *Desert Shield*and *Desert Storm.*

Along the spectrum of bilateral foreign policy instruments, IMET, and only IMET, fills a specific, narrow, multifaceted niche.  There are five aspects unique to this program:
	It is the sole source of assistance for countries that cannot afford to purchase professionalmilitary education, technical training, or E-IMET's political-military courses for their militaryinstitutions. 
	The program helps support three special schools at which instruction for Latin American andU.S. students is in Spanish:  the U.S. Army School of the Americas, the Inter-American Air ForcesAcademy, and the Naval Small-Craft Instruction and Technical Training School. 
	IMET funds essential language training in the United States at the Defense Language Institute,English Language Center (DLIELC) and English-language laboratories, all of which are usedextensively to prepare students for assignment in the U.S., as well as to maintain proficiency upontheir return. 
	It provides a preferential pricing policy that allows countries such as Spain, Greece, Bahrain,Finland, Austria and Singapore to purchase expensive training at reduced rates in conjunction withpurchases of major military systems. 
	IMET provides funding for a series of new courses offered by various defense and serviceschools to further the objectives of Expanded IMET legislation.  Congress has stipulated that, inFY 1995, twenty percent ($5 million) will be used for E-IMET instruction. 

Currently, IMET funding provides Professional Military Education (PME) and Technical Training inEnglish for foreign officers, enlisted and selected civilian personnel at U.S. military schools (other thanservice academies), and various training facilities.  Foreign students normally attend the same coursesand work side-by-side with U.S. students.  (Programs in some countries, such as France and Taiwan,segregate foreign students.)  There are a small number of special programs offered at civilian schoolsand institutions and some technical training conducted for all-international military student classes,usually for a particular weapons system.  
	Congressional appropriations for IMET since 1976 have fluctuated, reflecting trends in U.S. foreignpolicy and the climate of executive-legislative relations.  Table 2 and figures 1 and 2 show the annualIMET appropriation between 1976 and 1996, the number of participating countries in the same timeframe, as well as the number of IMET students each year.  During the first 5 years of enactmentunder economy-influenced legislative controls, a median IMET budget of $27.3 million covered anaverage of 44 countries.  The student population decreased during this period by roughly 50 percent(7,000 to 3,600).  In succeeding years, both dollar levels and foreign participation increased dramatically,averaging $48.5 million and 92 countries between 1982 and 1993.  The IMET student populationreached a peak of 6,700 in 1985, and then declined steadily until 1994, when it bottomed out at 2,100. Over the last 2 years, reflecting renewed budget cuts in all security assistance programs, the medianappropriation level fell significantly to $24 million.(Note 9) However, the number of established and newly democratic countries receiving small amounts of IMETfunding jumped to a record 2-year average of 108 states.  Since FY 1991, over 26 new countryprograms were initiated, primarily in Central and Eastern Europe and Africa.
TABLE 2.  *IMET annual appropriations and country programs, FY 1976-FY 1996 (dollars in thousands; studentsin hundreds)*
Fiscal Year
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996 (planned)
Appropriated
28,750
25,000
30,000
27,900
25,000
28,400
42,000
46,000
51,532
56,221
54,490
56,000
47,400
47,400
47,196
47,196
44,573
42,500
22,250
26,350
39,781
Number of Countries*
42
46
41
40
52
62
72
80
86
91
96
96
98
95
94
97
99
105
103
114
113
Number ofStudents
70
48
44
38
36
50
62
66
60
66
62
63
56
53
45
49
44
45
21
28 (estimate)* This column identifies the number of countries that funded IMET programs during a particular fiscal year.  The 1996 figure represents thosecountries programmed to be funded, subject to legislative and policy considerations that might restrict planned programs from being funded.

	The Defense Security Assistance Agency (DSAA) estimates that, between FY 1976 and FY 1994, over98,000 students from 105 countries have received instruction at more than 150 military schools andinstallations throughout the United States and abroad, including U.S. Coast Guard facilities, under theIMET grant program.(Note 10)  They have received formalinstruction selected from over 2,000 courses, on-the-job training, observer training (such as forforeign medical personnel), and orientation tours (e.g., for senior defense officials).  On occasion,specialized instruction by a Service "mobile training team" (MTT) has been conducted outside the United States.
	In reviewing these data for U.S. foreign military education and training, it is easy to miss thesingularity of the highly successful FMS and IMET programs.  There is no comparable historicalexample of so many diverse sovereign states augmenting the professional development of their armedforces by entrusting so many potential national leaders to the education and training of anotherstate.  While other countries such as France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, Taiwan and Canadahave offered similar forms of security assistance, and still do, the global scale undertaken by theUnited States continues to be unprecedented.  The U.S. approach also is exceptional for a secondreason.  Both programs, IMET and FMS, facilitate the only educational opportunities available throughthe U.S. Government in which military and civilian students share confidence-building experiences,which lead to greater mutual understanding.
**| Return to Top | Return to Contents |  Next Chapter | Previous Chapter |
*Return to NDU Homepage *INSS Homepage *What's New*******