McNair Paper Number 44, Chapter 4,  October 1995
**FOREIGN MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN FY 1995
This section of the study looks at trends today in the U.S. model for security assistance training.  Foreignmilitary education and training goes well beyond merely attending one of more than 2,000 courses.  Theapproach for this experience combines three educational opportunities in the United States.  Synergy isessential if the original intent of Congressional legislation is to be fully realized.  The first element isformal instruction at a U.S. military school.  Ideally, the course lasts for at least 8 weeks, the minimumlength of time needed for a sound parallel experience--exposure to a DOD-managed InformationalProgram (IP).  This is a specialized activity designed to assist foreign students to acquire anunderstanding of U.S. society, institutions, and values, including an awareness of U.S. effortsdomestically to respect human rights and the importance the United States places on the role of the armedforces in a democratic society.  The final element is English language training to assist those internationalmilitary students who lack the language qualifications necessary to fully benefit from the course work. This training also provides a strong introduction to North American culture with an emphasis on humanrights.  There are many variables within these three elements that influence the outcome of each visitor'sexperience.  The length of the course and strength of its curriculum--for example, the quality of teaching,design of the local Informational Program, mind set of U.S. and foreign students in a class, and otherfactors--make U.S. foreign military education and training inexact in structure, unpredictable in ultimateoutcome, yet genuine in intention and far-reaching in possible results.

**Context for the FY 1995 IMET Program**
Congress appropriated $25.5 million for the International Military Education and Training program inFY 1995, augmented by an $850,000 transfer from funding for peacekeeping operations (total:  $26.35million).  DSAA expects to finance the instruction of approximately 2,800 students from 114 countrieswith these funds.  Using a 6-year average, 1988 to 1993, as a benchmark for comparisons, the FY 1995appropriation is a 43 percent reduction from the 1988-1993 median funding level of $46.1 million.  TheIMET program during that period supported an average of 4,900 students from 97 countries.  	
**Attraction of U.S. Professional Military Experience**
The principal category of instruction requested by foreign countries in FY 1995 is Professional MilitaryEducation, with 64 percent of students (primarily officers) accounting for 70 percent of program costs(predominantly for programs related to language training).  Technical Training encompasses 32 percentof the students, and 18 percent of program costs.  By comparison, the statistics for FY 1988 indicate areverse emphasis on proficiency training in technical areas--48 percent of students and 45 percent ofprogram costs went to Technical Training, and only 32 percent of the students and 53 percent of programcosts to Professional Military Education.
	There are several reasons for the recent increase in foreign interest in U.S. Professional MilitaryEducation, especially in the areas of leadership, management, command and staff, and war collegecourses.  Political *and* military authorities in many new democracies are contending with the need forinstitutional adjustments to create a different political culture that emphasizes increased interaction withcivilian authorities.  Political leaders want to expose promising military officers to the professionaleducation and practices associated with the U.S. democratic system.  Leaders within the armed forcesoften have a similar objective in the face of internal questioning of traditional military values, missionsand organization. 
	On an operational level, there continues to be a desire to gain greater insight into U.S. militaryperformance in combat and during humanitarian assistance operations.  Perhaps on the part of somesenior military, there is a wish to become part of the global security community by association with theUnited States.  An Australian officer, responding to the study group survey conducted in preparation ofthis report, captured the essence of this new professional orientation, a view shared by many respondents:"I don't think we seek 'expertise'--its more education, exposure, and breadth of understanding. Nonetheless, the management skills discussed . . . and the intellectual exposure . . . *must* make students*much* better [officers]."(Note 11)  Other comments,particularly from respondents familiar with Latin American military schools, stress the attractiveness ofthe freedom to exlore alternative ways to solve operational and strategic problems in U.S. professionalcourses, instead of rote memorizationof approved solutions.(Note12)
	The current, expanded U.S. foreign and security policy agenda, covering such issues as democracy,drugs, arms control and peacekeeping, is shared today by many governments.  And, instead of occasionalqualms about accepting the conditions associated with security assistance training from the United States,preferring the less intrusive approach of the French, Israeli, or Taiwanese military, allies and friendsnow are seeking exposure to U.S. training and professional standards with growing enthusiasm.  Forexample, Malian officers who were former IMET students recently approached the U.S. embassy inBamako for support in developing a training course for noncommissioned officers similar to that in theUnited States.  The Malian officers understood the importance of professional development programs fornoncommissioned officers and other enlisted personnel in instilling discipline and gaining their supportfor the country's new democratic government under civilian control.(Note 13)

**Maturation of Expanded IMET**
DSAA has launched an intensive effort to reinforce several of its programs in response to Congressionaldirectives enlarging the purpose of IMET.  A number of new training initiatives have been introduced,and planning for additional curricula is underway based on recent clarifications by Congressional staff. From a listing of nine established courses in 1992, E-IMET's core program has grown to 35 over 3years, with an additional 18 courses taught abroad by Mobile Education Teams (METs) and another 43capable of meeting E-IMET standards when attended by IMET-funded civilians.  DSAA has retainedpostgraduate programs that are no longer available under IMET.(Note14)  The Defense Resource Management Institute (DRMI) and a new Center for Civil-MilitaryRelations (CCMR), both in Monterey, California, and the International Training Detachment of theNaval Justice School (NJS/ITD) in Newport, Rhode Island, manage the principal programs.  The strengthof Expanded IMET at present is to be found in its concentration on resource management and militaryjustice (human rights), particularly courses taught outside the United States by METs from DRMI andNJS/ITD.(Note 15)  These short courses, usually no longerthan 2 weeks, are effective in bringing civilian and military officials together on neutral ground andwithin their own culture, often for the first time, to discuss fundamental political-military issues.  Mobileeducation teams have been well received by both host governments and U.S. missions, as is reflected ingrowing numbers of countries desiring to participate in these programs.
	Two schools of thought concerning Expanded IMET have emerged among recipients of securityassistance training.  The smaller group likes the focus of E-IMET instruction and its encouragement ofcivilian participation.  These countries, primarily from Central Europe, the former Soviet Union, andAfrica, tend not to have had previous experience with IMET's professional military courses and have fewpreconceived views about the program.  The governments are rebuilding defense establishments and havean abiding interest in resource management and military justice programs.  The new emphasis on civilianparticipation in IMET-funded education, however, has a downside even among these ardent supporters. The Czech Republic is typical of many new democracies.  A U.S. embassy official in Prague told theINSS team that the government simply has "run out of Czechs who are qualified and can be spared fromtheir current duties during the course of a single year . . . English language is a critical limiting factor. . . the Czechs agree that they should send 'the right person' to the IMET course, not just 'the bestEnglish score available.'  That's easier said than done.  It's tough to build a boat while you're careeningdown a white water river."(Note 16)  In many democracies,government service has limited prestige and appeal, resulting in serious shortages of civilians interestedin the defense and national security sectors.  The study team also found a need for caution.  Themotivation of some civilians who are attracted to IMET-funded programs should be checked to avoidinadvertently supporting conservative ultranationalists, for example, or business opportunists.  Underthese circumstances, heavy U.S. pressure for civilian participation in IMET instruction in the UnitedStates is considered self-defeating in several countries.     
	The larger school of thought includes governments long accustomed to participating in PME andTechnical Training courses.  Respondents to the study group survey representing these countries findExpanded IMET less productive.  These governments regret the reduction in IMET funding and considerthe new program, with its congressionally mandated funding floor and DSAA's intent to designate moreIMET dollars for E-IMET programs, a challenge to a pattern of financial assistance that over time hadbecome routine.  They prefer concentration on professional military education and expanded opportunitiesfor officers in lieu of civilians.  In many of these countries, there is no tradition of using military fundsto train civilians (and vice versa) and no bureaucratic process to do so.  In some cases, members of thisgroup believe that E-IMET is part of a veiled policy to do away with military institutions and replacethem with police.
    	To manage implementation of the Expanded IMET amendment, DSAA has assumed responsibilityfor the education of foreign defense civilians through close review and approval, as appropriate, of allcourses presented for inclusion in the E-IMET program.  DSAA's efforts have introduced soundacademic standards.  The content and pedagogy of professional military education and technicalproficiency training, on the other hand, have long been considered the prerogative and responsibility ofthe military departments.  DSAA lacks qualified staff and has not made an effort to oversee them.

**The Informational Program--Still a Strong Influence**  The Defense Department'sInformational Program (IP), inaugurated by an internal directive in 1965, is experiential educationintended to provide foreign students with an awareness and functional understanding of internationallyrecognized human rights and the American democratic way of life.  The IP has been and continues tobe, in the view of the INSS team, the central and most influential factor shaping attitudes and knowledgeabout the United States.  Like successful exchange activities run by other government agencies, such asthe Fulbright Program and USIA's International Visitor Program, the Informational Program's operatingphilosophy is simple and direct--to really understand American life, you must participate in it.  
	For over 30 years, each of the armed services has been required to provide an educationalopportunity, concomitant with their professional instruction, that ensures foreign military students returnhome with a useful and balanced appreciation of U.S. culture, values, and the responsibilities ofgovernment at all levels, military institutions, and citizens to protect, preserve, and respect the rights ofevery member of society.  To avoid any stigma of "forced indoctrination," the program has beenvoluntary, but participation is strongly encouraged.  The Informational Program is not included in aschool's formal training schedule as a block of instruction or an elective.  Normally, it is fitted aroundthe existing curriculum.  Guided now by a 1994 handbook that suggests teaching material and offerslessons learned from previous interactions with foreign students, International Military Student Offices(IMSO's) at each training installation implement decentralized programs they have designed to appealto their foreign visitors.(Note 17)  IMSO's organize eventsand activities related to 12 areas of basic Americana.  The topics include: the Constitution and Bill ofRights; local, state, and federal government institutions; civilian and military judicial systems; politicalprocesses; news media; American family and community life; ethnic and other minorities; industry,environmental protection, and agriculture; economy (local free enterprise system); labor and labor-management relations; education; and public and social welfare.(Note 18)
	The IP's central focus is on democracy and human rights.  Whether preparing for a cultural eventor exchanging views later, a IMSO  representative is required to guide a discussion among participatingstudents of pertinent human rights aspects.  The activities noted in Figure 3, provided by the U.S. ArmyDefense Ammunition Center and School in Savannah, Illinois, are typical and demonstrate the depth ofthis program and how it works today.

	The Informational Program forms an integral part of the educational experience at more than 150military schools and installations and in surrounding communities.(Note 19)  DSAA manages the policy and monitoring office. Funds for the IP are derived from IMET and FMS course tuition costs, which average between $20 and$30 per student per training man-week.(Note 20)  DSAAdoes not currently consider the Informational Program eligible for funding as an E-IMET program. Considerable effort goes into ensuring that the foreign students, and their families, are properly receivedand integrated into military and civilian communities.  They routinely have both a military and a civiliansponsor.  Local civic, church and, in some locales, ethnic groups also participate.  (Several CentralEuropean groups are active.)  After students depart, IMSOs attempt to maintain contact throughnewsletters and other forms of correspondence.  
	The INSS survey developed for this report found overwhelming support for the IP.  Responses fromformer IMET and FMS students and embassy officials in frequent contact with graduates are replete withpraise for the Informational Program.  A comment from a student departing from the United States isrepresentative: "We can get the academic information from books and handouts, but what we will takeback to our country with us and always remember are the people we met and the experiences we had onthe IP tours."(Note 21) For a faculty member at the NavalCommand College, the IP is the "heart and soul" of the training program:  "I know this for a fact fromtwo years of traveling . . . with officers representing forty-five (45) different nations."(Note 22)

**Language Instruction Supports Human Rights Awareness**
The full effectiveness of U.S. military education and training, as well as the Informational Program, restson English competence.  Much of language enhancement occurs during home country preparation for theassignment in the United States.  However, a substantial percentage of foreign students require additionalintensive language instruction prior to beginning their courses.  Each year approximately 3,000 studentscomplete instruction at the Defense Language Institute-English Language Center (DLIELC) after beingimmersed initially in an English-language-only environment.  The Center recently has incorporated E-IMET-related topics into its curriculum, with emphasis on the precepts of the 1948 Universal Declarationof Human Rights.  Subjects such as civil-military relations and human rights are not taught *per se* butare introduced as vehicles to develop English language proficiency through group discussion. 

**Criticism of IMET and the U.S. Army School of the Americas**
Foreign education and training plays a valuable role in promoting mutually beneficial relations andbroadening understanding between the United States and its allies and friends.  It also improvesinteroperability among armed forces at the operational level and fosters greater respect for civil authorityand human rights.  Yet, in spite of perceived benefits at a low cost, IMET and the counterdrug granttraining program have lost some Congressional support and funding in the current period of budgetlimitations.  One important reason for the diminution of legislative backing is the perception that U.S.grant programs have been ineffectively used to educate many of the most notorious antidemocrats andhuman rights violators worldwide, associating the United States with their abuses.  The main target forthis criticism is the U.S. Army School of the Americas, one of the few U.S. training facilities and byfar the largest in which Spanish-speaking military personnel are not integrated into regular U.S. militarytraining courses.
	Critics claim that the School of the Americas is a Cold War relic that no longer serves Americaninterests.  Over the last 5 years, however, their shrill argument has become less impassioned and moresophisticated.  Initially, opposition attacked the school's existence and the courses of instruction taughtthere, portraying it alternatively as a "School of Assassins," the U.S. Army's "coup school," and a"School for Dictators."(Note 23)  After Congressionalamendments to close it were soundly defeated in 1993 and 1994, critics modified their approach.  Onetack currently used by the Americas division of Human Rights Watch is to suggest, "It's not ourimpression the School of the Americas is training people to become murderers and dictators.  They don'tneed to come here to learn how to become thugs.  But clearly the school gives them more prestige andgives them more power when they go home."(Note 24)  Asecond line of argumentation, used recently by Congressmen Kennedy and Dellums in a letter urgingPresident Clinton to eliminate funding for the School in the FY 1996 Appropriation Bill, does notquestion the "good values and the commitment of the U.S. personnel at the School."  They make twopoints: the "continued operation of the School of the Americas, with its history and tradition of abusivegraduates, stands as a barrier to establishing a new and constructive relationship with Latin Americanmilitaries after the Cold War.  And it continues to associate the United States with those abuses."(Note 25)  The Department of the Army vigorously disputesthese allegations, finding them factually wrong and deliberately misleading.
	The catalyst for the opposition's change in rhetoric appears to be the realization that the professional program at the School of the Americas has evolved in harmony with U.S. and regional security priorities as well as congressional mandate (in the 1991 Expanded IMET legislation).  For example, the school's revised mission--to provide doctrinally sound military education and training to the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean; promote democratic values and respect for human rights; and foster cooperation among the  multinational military forces--now reflects an emphasis on the proper role of military institutions in democratic societies.  Since 1990, the School of the Americas has become the only U.S. Army academic institution where human rights instruction is incorporated into every course.  The 37 offerings in FY 1995 focus on developing professional military thought processes and technical skills, consistent with U.S. Army doctrine, in such fields as peace operations, democratic sustainment,counterdrug operations, and natural disaster response, in addition to standard U.S. infantry and aviationinstruction.
	For the School of the Americas, no less than for other institutions of learning, it is impossible toguarantee that all graduates will live up to the positive values to which they were exposed in theclassroom.  During the past 49 years, the School has graduated almost 59,000 military students.  Onlya very small number of them, less than one-half of 1 percent have been guilty of subsequent misconduct. To portray their atypical conduct as the norm or to imply that U.S. Army schooling encourages, teaches,or supports inhumane behavior and nondemocratic values is not only incorrect and unfair butintellectually dishonest.  
	It is important to note, furthermore, that most of the reputed "IMET failures" tend to have twocharacteristics:
	The course they attended at the School was technical (e.g., parachute rigging or communication)and very short, often only 1 or 2 weeks in duration, affording little time to become acquainted withand interact with U.S. instructors and counterparts. 

	The School of the Americas was in Panama when they received instruction.  The program movedto Fort Benning, GA, in 1984 when Fort Gulick, in the Panama Canal Zone, reverted to thePanamanian Government in accordance with the Panama Canal Treaties. 

  While located overseas, the benefit of DOD's three-part synergy in foreign military education (coursework, IP, and language training) was not realized.  There was no opportunity for students to leave afamiliar Latin culture to experience Americana through the Informational Program.  Nor were theyintroduced to U.S. cultural values through English language instruction.  The Canal Zone, symbolizingfor some Latin Americans U.S. imperialism and exploitation, may have inadvertently reinforced attitudesantithetical to our institutions, ideals, and way of life.(Note26)
**| Return to Top | Return to Contents |  Next Chapter | Previous Chapter |
*Return to NDU Homepage *INSS Homepage *What's New*******