McNair Paper Number 44, Chapter 10, October 1995

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:

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

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: