McNair Paper Number 44, Chapter 6, October 1995

Many governments wishing to supplement national military instruction rely on the United States to assist in educating future key professionals--presidential advisors, senior commanders, principal staff officers, educators, and trainers. Promising officers assigned to the U.S. program represent an investment by their government and military institution in their country's future security and defense. Graduates do rise to positions of considerable prominence. The experience of the Naval Command College (NCC) is illustrative of the importance attached to U.S. schooling, the quality of foreign students, as well as the contribution of DOD's educational efforts. Since 1957, 53 percent of international students (641 of 1219) from 77 countries have risen to flag rank; 19 percent of these officers have become chiefs of service. Five percent of graduates between 1977 and 1991 (23) currently hold this position. At the U.S. Army War College, 54 percent of its foreign graduates (241 of 449) from 85 countries have attained general officer rank. Today, 3 percent, 7 officers, hold the highest position in their army or a cabinet-level billet. (There are no data yet on the initial civilian students.)

For its part, Washington also considers these international officer graduates, and now civilian professionals, to be an important investment in U.S. security by virtue of the roles they will play in establishing or sustaining local and regional stability worldwide. This U.S. interest is pursued through foreign military education and training in several ways, as the INSS team details below.

Access and Subjective Ties

The International Military Education and Training program today is often described as an "instrument of influence," able to affect a wide range of U.S. interests from human rights performance to military interoperability. This notion of "influence," however, requires close examination. In one traditional view, IMET and other forms of security assistance are presumed to accord the provider leverage vis a vis recipients. As one experienced observer noted in describing this Cold War mentality, it was believed to be self-evident that "the United States is able to affect the internal and external policy behavior of recipient military institutions and governments in a manner congenial with U.S. foreign policy interests."(Note 27) This perspective pervades the 1975 and 1976 HIRC hearings on international security assistance that produced the IMET legislation.

The study team found that almost all of today's proponents of foreign military education and training contacted during its research recognize that IMET offers no guarantee of far reaching capacity to alter recipient institutional values or governmental behavior. Practitioners speak instead of access, rapport, and ease of communication, terms used by some synonymously with "influence." Former and current attachés, security assistance officers, and IMET graduates themselves noted in response to the INSS questionnaire and during its workshops that security assistance education and training "gives you access that you wouldn't or couldn't have without difficulty," that is, "access at the senior ranks of host country military establishments."(Note 28) Describing an experience with a Commandant of the Bolivia Infantry School, a retired Special Forces officer wrote: "We had instant rapport as professionals having attended the same schools. As you well know, in that part of the world (as well as others) the 'chemistry' factor is the single most important in establishing an environment for the exchange of ideas. "(Note 29) "IMET students do act differently from their fellow officers who have not visited the United States," noted a Defense Attaché in an African state. "They seek out contact with U.S. representatives, are more friendly, and have a wider range of understanding to our way of thinking and acting."(Note 30) Diplomatic missions find this friendly opening "incredibly useful." In Maldives, for instance, IMET is the means of access to and inter-action with the closed world of the National Security Service.(Note 31) For several African countries, this is the only foreign assistance the United States provides.

The foreign military education and training experience in the United States builds what retired LTG William E. Odom, USA, has called "subjective ties" with future military and often political leaders in other states. In 1993 Congressional testimony he recounted a personal experience:

Another kind of desirable influence through IMET is demonstrated by US-Pakistani relations immediately after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. General Zia, the President of Pakistan, was being urged by his foreign minister to scorn US offers of assistance in favor of coming to term with Moscow. Because Zia had attended two US Army schools, and because he had made extremely close friends with ordinary American citizens during those two years, he was subjectively inclined toward the US offer. As a party to the meeting with him in Pakistan when he made the decision to accept the US offer, tying his policy to US strategy for Afghanistan, I gained the impression that his IMET experience was a critical factor in his decision.(Note 32)

It is difficult to measure the degree to which a former IMET or FMS student officer or civilian is favorably inclined toward the United States. A graduate may not have made it a part of his judgment until an issue arises that forces him to make a decision. More than likely, IMET is just one component of a complex decision process, such as President Zia's. But it is a factor, and personal exposure to U.S. society, institutions, and values could be the decisive influence. During a September 1991 crisis in Zaire, a general officer-IMET graduate faced such a policy decision and made the difference in getting 450 Americans evacuated from a closed national airport under his control.(Note 33)

On the other hand, the IMET experience may have adverse or no affect. Clearly, a country's own culture, political and institutional traditions are significant influences on the attitudes and conduct of military and civilian leaders. There will always be powerful leader-graduates with no subjective ties and no interest in U.S. values after the academic or training experience.(Note 34) Available data, however, suggests that this group of atypical former students is very small in number. They often have spent only a few weeks in the United States or, as the pre-1984 example of the U.S. Army School of the Americas in Panama suggests, have not experienced democratic culture.(Note 35)

Better Bilateral Understanding

The opportunity for professional development in the United States is an important symbol of a sound bilateral relationship in a world where the potential for misunderstanding between states is ever present. Graduates of U.S. military programs depart with a better appreciation of American cultural reference points and style of public debate. As one survey respondent put it: "Walk a mile in my shoes and you'll probably better understand and react with me in the future."(Note 36) Research revealed that former student-officers often help behind the scenes to correct misinformation or place an issue in its proper context. Undoubtedly, officers who have attended courses in the United States will be in important command, staff and academic positions where their observations carry weight, even when they are junior officers. "The main contribution of the IMET graduates has been the diminishing of emotional and uninformed reactions [within the military institution] against the U.S.," observed a senior civilian Brazilian survey respondent with extensive government service. "Even if the formal declarations sound aggressive, IMET programs have created very effective informal channels that help to clarify sensitive situations, such as a deep suspicion at the Brazilian War College that the U.S. has a plan to seize the Amazon Basin because of its environmental importance."(Note 37)

Another dimension of bilateral understanding is crucial in a crisis--the existence of high-level, unofficial channels of communication that allow friends to interpret events from their perspectives and thereby improve the accuracy of reporting and depth of analysis. During the Malvinas/Falklands War in 1982, shared U.S. educational experiences produced at least two unauthorized channels of communication between senior Argentine and U.S. officer-classmates.(Note 38) In quickly planning and coordinating Operation Provide Comfort in 1991, both the State and Defense Departments benefitted from close relationships among several U.S. foreign service officers, U.S. military officers, and their Turkish military counterparts, all of whom had met as students at U.S. war colleges.

Neutral Ground Upon Which Neighbors Meet

There are, in reality, few opportunities for officers from neighboring countries to meet, exchange views in a not-for-attribution environment, and become acquainted with one another. U.S. security assistance training provides such an opportunity and encourages such interaction. International students at a U.S. installation, often small in number, tend to become a close knit family during a professional military course. Experiences are exchanged and bonds of friendship and trust are often formed. DOD's Informational Program plays a key role in this process. Its activities bring the foreign students together regularly for special events and tours, and in this and in many other ways help them to get to know each other outside of the classroom. Case in point, several years ago a senior Chilean air force officer observed that "relations with the Peruvian Air Force had never been better because his Peruvian classmate from undergraduate pilot training in the United States had also risen to an equally important position in his air force. They had remained friends for more than 20 years and were in regular contact. The Chilean added that 'there is nothing that we cannot work out between us.'"(Note 39)