McNair Paper Number 44, Chapter 10,  October 1995
**MAKING A GOOD PROGRAM BETTER**
The INSS research team's framework for analysis was the extent to which IMET serves U.S. foreign anddefense policy interests. The study group found several problems in policy direction and overallmanagement of IMET that, if forthrightly addressed, might clarify responsibilities for the program andimprove the effectiveness of foreign military education and training.  There are two areas of seriousconcern--the program's management structure and the vision guiding foreign military education andtraining today--and two shortcomings--implementation standards for country-programs anddeteriorating English language capabilities overseas.

**Streamline Program Management and Responsibility**
The INSS study group found that pressing concerns have arisen in the United States and overseas aboutthe IMET program's policy direction and overall management system.  By law, IMET is a Departmentof State foreign assistance program, overseen by Congressional International Relations authorizing andForeign Operations appropriating committees.  State determines whether grant international militaryeducation and training support would further U.S. security interests in particular countries and at whatlevel of funding.  The Defense Security Assistance Agency administers day-to-day implementationworldwide.  With the exception of E-IMET programs, which DSAA closely supervises, most foreignmilitary students attend courses in the United States designed and directed by the military departmentsto train members of the U.S. Armed Forces.
	The apportionment of responsibilities--system oversight (State), program management (Defense),program implementation (military departments primarily), and program requirements (unified commands,country teams, and foreign governments)--is not geared to meet the U.S. Government's broadeningpolicy interests in today's changing security environment.  "There is no synergy here," observed arepresentative of a major unified command during one of INSS's workshops.(Note 65)  The arrangement is inherently dysfunctional, creatingthe impression that IMET is a program without long-range benefit, one well suited only for near-termdisplays of U.S. attention and associated "carrot and stick" diplomacy.  This leads many in the U.S.Government to conclude that IMET is an expendable program.   
	Unified commanders affect country military assistance programs by commenting on the AnnualIntegrated Assessment of Security Assistance (AIASA) prepared by the U.S. country team, but otherwisehave secondary roles.  Their concerns about the effectiveness and responsiveness often fail to resonatewithin this disordered management system.  These leaders may desire long-term strategic IMETprograms for countries in their regions, but they are unsuccessful in acquiring sufficient resources "fortheir regions."  Typical of IMET's diffuse management arrangement is the unified command's annualreport to Congress.  The Senate Armed Services and National Security Committees receive theCommand's posture statement and hear the Commander's explanation of his strategic concerns andrequirements, which invariably include IMET-related issues, but these committees have no oversightinterest in the foreign assistance program. 
	Although international military education and training is a diplomatic-defense, or political-military, instrument of national security policy,  INSS's research found substantial agreement that the DOD has the greatest interest in and commitment to the IMET program.  For the last 19 years, the StateDepartment has dominated the process while remaining ambivalent toward it, whereas Defense, withoutactive sustained interest by staff principals, generally has deferred to State.  Research showed strongagreement that overall responsibility for this policy instrument is not the unique purview of a particulardepartment of government; it could and should be transferred.  There is some support for this positionin the Senate Armed Services Committee, which considered authorizing DOD to use up to $20 millionfrom its Operations and Maintenance account for the IMET program in FY 96 legislation.
	In today's international security environment, and as Defense adjusts its role in it incorporating thedemands of peacetime engagement, basic IMET relationships need adjustment.  Placing the IMETaccount in the department which has the greater interest and investment in foreign military educationwould produce a more centralized and coherent program arrangement, facilitate program and budgetplanning, and restore confidence in the program's future at a time when alterations in the organizationand allocation of the foreign policy community's budgetary resources are clearly coming.  The originallegislation intended for State and Defense to share responsibilities for the planning, development and useof education and training programs.  The starting point for this arrangement can be in either department. Just as unified commanders and ambassadors must work together on issues of mutual interest, includingIMET and E-IMET, Defense and State must cooperate on foreign military education.  It is time for thedepartment with the greater interest and commitment to take the lead in this partnership.  This complexissue is currently under DOD review.
	The INSS study group recommends the transfer of the budget account from State (ForeignOperations) to the Defense Department (Operations and Maintenance).  To provide sustained,collaborative policy direction and implementation oversight, INSS also recommends the creation of apermanent Interdepartmental Review Committee on Foreign Military Education, co-chaired by theAssistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and the Assistant Secretary of State forPolitical-Military Affairs.  Representation on the Defense side would include DSAA, the Joint Staff, theservices and the U.S. Coast Guard, and the five regional unified commands.  The State Department sidewould include all regional bureaus; International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL), Democracy,Human Rights and Labor (DRL); and the U.S. Agency for International Development (democracyissues).  Advisors from both departments specializing in legal affairs and congressional relations wouldparticipate.  This standing group would provide the coordinated, high-level defense and diplomaticattention missing in the current management arrangement by becoming the forum to address the followingmajor interdepartmental issues on foreign military education: 
Coordinating (1) the annual budget request for IMET that State would forward to Congress and(2) the allocation of the Congressional appropriation Reallocating funds between regions when requiredRecommending the administration's position on suspending, freezing, conditioning or cancellingcountry programs Commissioning and overseeing investigations of allegations against any aspect of ForeignMilitary EducationReviewing the educational content and quality of professional military education and technicaltraining courses Providing overarching policies to guide Foreign Military EducationDeveloping congressional support for the IMET appropriation.
**Broaden the Vision for Contemporary Foreign Military Education**
The Defense Department's vision for the education and training of foreign students, as stated by DSAA,is to assist friends and allies in establishing an effective foreign defense establishment that is organizedand operates in a manner consistent with U.S. democratic values.  DSAA's concept for achieving thisgoal recognizes the necessity of addressing several elements: sound doctrine, technical warfightingcapability, effective resource management, and the proper role of a military within a democratic society.  The concept uses U.S.-funded and U.S.-directed IMET (including the E-IMET program) to ensure thatstudents receive sound professional military education and instruction in the "softer" aspects of militaryscience--resource management, civilian control, human rights--in which foreign governments might nototherwise invest to the extent that the U.S. desires.  DSAA's approach  relies primarily on country-financed, country-directed FMS training for the "harder" technical, warfighting skills to which foreigndefense establishments generally accord priority.  Finally, the concept encourages countries to purchasePME and E-IMET through FMS, which many do, although DSAA recognizes that the best leverage forthese courses resides with the U.S.-funded IMET program.(Note66)  Unfortunately, this game plan has not been broadly communicated in Defense policy-guidancedocuments for a larger government and nongovernment audience.
	Analysis by the INSS study group suggests that DSAA's general concept is sound and workable asfar as it goes.  Going a step further, the INSS team believes that DOD's approach to the education andtraining of foreign students must:  (1) demonstrate a more comprehensive understanding of OSD's policyneeds to use this instrument in its peacetime diplomacy to promote U.S. security interests, and (2) givegreater emphasis to getting the best return on the investment of defense resources.
	Among the policy needs for more effective defense diplomacy in today's security environment is thenecessity to move beyond the traditional U.S. military mind-set about educating international students. As described in the current CJCS Military Education Policy Document: "Services should maintaininternational officer programs that best meet the objectives of the colleges and contribute to professionalbroadening of attending U.S. officers."(Note 67)  Theapproach is more what can they do for us rather than what can we gain and what do we want them totake away.  The current perspective has not changed since the Cold War.  It is paternalistic, does notadvance the "peacetime engagement" component of the National Military Strategy, nor satisfy legislativerequirements.  The mind-set carries over into professional military curricula for US students by givingminimal or no attention to issues of human rights or the promotion of democracy.  A second issue is theneed to adopt a simplified frame of reference.  Defense should have a framework that clarifies pastconfusion with terminology (all foreign military education and training is not IMET), acknowledges theexistence of separate educational experiences, and recognizes the importance of integrating them.  TheINSS study recommends *Foreign Military Education* as the umbrella term (table 3).  
	To get the best return on its "grant" investment, Defense should make a clear distinction betweenIMET and E-IMET within the dictates of legislative language.  The INSS study advocates focusingForeign Military Education for military officers on PME with an emphasis on interoperability.  The"softer" aspects of military science should be more visible in PME curricula.  Participation in the DODInformational Program should shift from voluntary to obligatory, and this program should receive greaterrecognition and support.  The explosion of new courses in the United States catering to resourcemanagement, civilian control and human rights is not necessarily the best use of IMET resources.  Themain thrust of E-IMET should be overseas through an expansion of Mobile Education Teams and similarinitiatives.  These high- impact and relatively low-cost programs already are providing unprecedentedassistance to new governments working to resolve their problems of civil-military relations and defensemanagement.  The challenges for E-IMET are to find ways to broadcast its positive messages morewidely and to sustain new dialogue with limited resources.  The INSS study recommends programrefinements in four areas to broaden the contemporary vision of  Foreign Military Education:  the roleof OSD and the Joint Staff; the distinction between IMET and E-IMET; the educational conceptsupported by IMET funding; and the expansion of E-IMET.
**Role of OSD and Joint Staff in Foreign Military Education**.  In the view of the INSS research team, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff need to be more visible in shaping a unified vision for Foreign Military Education generally and, in particular, overseeing the academic development of their counterparts from other countries.  In today's global security environment, DOD's ability to provide a range of professional educational opportunities to international military and civilian students gives the U.S. a proven instrument of policy.  For almost 20 years, however, OSD and the Joint Staff have shown minimal interest in thesmall, uncontroversial IMET program.  During the Cold War, DSAA filled the void at the defense policylevel, when required, as well as managed the detailed implementation of the program.  In the post-ColdWar era, resources to support foreign policy are in short supply and the use of defense diplomacy inpeacetime is increasing.  The new U.S. foreign policy agenda includes democracy, governanced andother non-traditional security concerns.  U.S. civil-military relations have become an important modelfor other governments at least to understand.  Policy direction by OSD and the Joint Staff would helpguide Foreign Military Education in today's changing security environment in at least four areas:
	Academic Guidance: OSD may desire to have specific policy-relevant themes supporting theNational Security Strategy included in curricula for professional military education courses attendedby foreign students or to have schools design special "electives" for international attendance.  Anotional list of subjects for visiting officers might include:  humans rights in operations other thanwar, comparative civil-military relations, multinational peace operations, crisis management, andinter-governmental cooperation. 
	OSD's Role in Developing Counterparts: OSD should consider assuming primary responsibility for overseeing the education of foreign defense civilians, using existing programs for defense civilians and including joint and military department resources when necessary. 

	Validation of Curricula: OSD should form a small commission of knowledgeable civilian officials and retired military officers to review periodically the structure, curricular content and student activity of all educational programs under Foreign Military Education and make recommendations, as required, for improving them. 

	School Quotas for Foreign Students: OSD should consider establishing minimum levels of international attendance at different military schools within the U.S. military education system as the U.S. student population is reduced.*****
**IMET and E-IMET: equal parts of foreign military education**.  Traditional foreign militaryeducation supported by IMET funding should continue to have three professional courses over eightweeks in length, an Informational Program and English ****language instruction if English skills are notsufficient.  The program would remain in the United States as an investment in future bilateral andmultilateral relations based on the original premise that many officer graduates will rise to positionsof prominence within their country's armed forces and, in all probability, also within theirgovernments and business**** communities.  The premise has been proven to be correct. The Expanded IMET experience should continue to emphasize what it does well.  It already is focused onnear-term as well as long-term****impact in the area of national governance and political-militaryrelations.  It has demonstrated exceptional results from its short, specialized courses for civilians(primarily) and military officers, which are conducted effectively overseas.
**TABLE 3.  Foreign Military Education
***IMET***
 U.S.-funded and directed
 80% of appropriation
 Professional MilitaryEducation (PME)
 In United States
 Courses 8 weeks or longer
English language
 Informational Program
Mobile Training Teams 
Concessional rates
LATAM schoolscontinue; modified
***E-IMET
U.S.-funded and directed
20% of appropriation
Resource management, democracy, civil-military, military justice and human rights
Emphasize MobileEducation Teams
Overseas and U.S.
Most courses under 8 weeks; exceptions
English interpretation
Civilian and military students
Funds civilians at PME; military studentsin E-IMET courses
***FMS/Other***
Country-financed and directed technicaltraining and PME
In United States
Course length can vary
Master's degreeprograms
Pilot training
For PME, IMETguidelines apply

	The IMET and E-IMET programs in foreign military education should not compete and should betransparent.  Beginning with funding levels, the ultimate size and focus of E-IMET should be known. The current annual creep of funds to be obligated as Expanded IMET and the gradual shift of IMETdollars into E-IMET courses and training should be stopped for two reasons.  First, it is contrary toprinciples of sound resource planning which Congress and DOD advocate.  The funding for E-IMETshould be apparent, not open-ended as it is now.  The INSS study group suggests an annual fixedceiling of 20 percent of IMET funds be devoted to E-IMET.  This should be sufficient to develop andsustain a program with its distinct focus.  Second, the original 1976 Congressional mandate is stilloperative.  The primary focus of IMET is on professional military education, which with today'semphasis on interoperability and operational proficiency is even more important.  As mentioned above,steps can be taken to improve education in the E-IMET aspects of military science in PME coursesand their support Informational Programs.  It also is not clear to the INSS study group the extentto which OSD and the Joint Staff desire to expose military and civilian students to resourcemanagement, civilian control, and human rights at the expense of traditional professional militaryeducation.  This issue needs to be addressed.  Uncertainty about the balance between IMET and E-IMET continues to have a corrosive effect on foreign military education.  Senior OSD officials may alsowant to discuss this issue with members of the appropriation committees.
**Contemporary concept for IMET-funded instruction**.  IMET should fund attendance only atprofessional military education courses for officers and senior enlisted personnel.  The principalcourses of instruction for officers would be traditional command training, command and staff, andwar college.  Limited IMET funding precludes sending students to 2,000 courses.  Selection of courseseligible for IMET students would be based on contributions to interoperability, regional stability, andthe realization of U.S. diplomatic and economic interests.
	Technical training, which tends to be cheaper and of shorter duration, should be purchasedthrough FMS with monetary concessions built in so that it is affordable.  DSAA has in placeconcessional pricing policies based on law for all IMET recipients and a number of other allies.  Theagency currently is minimizing IMET-funded technical training to emphasize PME and E-IMET andencourage countries to purchase their technical training through FMS.  The focus of this instructionwould be on training the trainers, especially at the junior officer and enlisted grades.  Ideally,followup training and technical assistance to graduates should occur overseas, as required, usingMobile Training Teams.
	Professional military education at Latin American Schools should be consistent with the three-element IMET experience and emphasize English instruction in the classroom at the advanced courseand command and staff levels.  Increased participation by U.S. officers is necessary.  Courses forcadets, junior officers and lower enlisted grades would be purchased as technical training and betaught in Spanish.
	Some countries may still want to take advantage of previous IMET options such as sending theirpilots here to train or sending engineer officers to the Naval Postgraduate School.  Theseopportunities should be purchased with monetary concessions built in.
**Expansion of E-IMET abroad**.  One of the most successful aspects of E-IMET is the use ofMobile Education Teams overseas to conduct seminars bringing together a wide range of militaryofficers and civilian officials to discuss issues of military justice, human rights, defense resourcemanagement, and civil-military relations.  While DSAA is trying to expand this facet of E-IMET, MobileEducation Teams, by themselves, cannot possibly satisfy the requirement for this education in eachIMET-recipient country, let alone sustain it over time.  This can only be accomplished by:  (1)institutionalizing E-IMET-related instruction in foreign military education systems, which has startedin a few countries, as well as in selected civilian academic programs; and (2) encouraging attendanceby both military and civilian students at both venues.
	Looking beyond the METs, DOD needs to adopt a "train the trainer" approach in interestedcountries.  This might include collaboration between DOD's educational institutes teaching E-IMET-related courses and foreign military and civilian faculties to offer related academic programs tomilitary and civilian students.  In some countries, the program might also provide assistance tonational academic institutions in the development of international relations, national security studies,and public administration curricula. Such cooperation would help expandthe potential pool of civiliansinterested in security and defenseissues and improve the caliber of government and legislative staffs focused on security and defenseissues.  
**Correct Shortcomings in the Program
**Establish New Standards**.  Embassies need to be given clear guidance, and be reminded annually,about student eligibility for IMET or E-IMET funded programs.  Countries receiving funding for ForeignMilitary Education should have positive human rights records or be acknowledged as working tocorrect past practices which violated the international code.  If the host country is eligible, the U.S.embassy is expected to screen and clear candidates nominated for all Foreign Military Educationprograms, including training purchased under FMS.  The criteria should be well known in the recipientgovernment and its military institutions, implicitly making a statement about the importance the U.S.attachés to personal accountability for past actions.   A common set of clear, approved U.S. standardswould be a useful tool for embassies.  To reinforce U.S. credibility in this matter, the mission alsomust ensure that candidates for U.S. schooling are chosen for the correct reasons--not to currypolitical favor, to be the only person able to pass the language test, or simply to be left to default.  
	After graduation, embassies have to begin systematically tracking all former students, not justthose funded by IMET, as a matter of priority and develop procedures to maintain contact with themeither officially or socially as an important way to continue the U.S. experience.(Note 68)  Of particular importance to the Foreign MilitaryEducation program is determining how prominent officers have used their U.S. education--are thereinstances when any graduate, under the press of circumstances, has responded in a way thatdemonstrates a favorable inclination toward his U.S. educational experience?  The database fortracking former students would be kept in the embassy.      
**Revitalize English Language Training**.  The framework of Foreign Military Education properlyemphasizes the importance of English language training, particularly as the emerging commonlanguage for coalition peace operations.  However, this step must be matched by improved fundingand a policy that reinforces at every opportunity the importance of English language education andthe use abroad of the labs, in-country language training detachments, and materials made availablethrough IMET programs.

In summary, IMET is one of the few foreign-aid initiatives Congress continues to consider relevant,useful, and worthy of funding--and for good reason.  The program promotes U.S.  interests now andfor the future.  It is the most successful program of its kind, having educated more than 100,000students from 114 countries since 1976.  And it yields a high return on a small investment bypromoting long-term stability, encouraging military cooperation in coalition operations, and fosteringthe growth of democracy and human rights worldwide.
	This paper proposes certain evolutionary changes to improve an already good program:
	A single frame of reference, Foreign Military Education, to consolidate and simplify this policyinstrument

	A shift of  the IMET account from State (150) to Defense shared oversight

	A decision to make the currently voluntary Informational Program mandatory

	A fixed annual ceiling for E-IMET of 20 percent of the students

	A need to end paternalism in IMET's view of foreign effective, low-cost, mobile educational teams overseas with the flexibility to offer academic assistance to new governments

	A revitalizing of the rol U.S. missions should be playing in foreign military education, especially in followup contact with graduates of the program.

**| Return to Top | Return to Contents | Previous Chapter |
*Return to NDU Homepage *INSS Homepage *What's New*************