McNair Paper Number 44, Chapter 4, October 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:

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)