International Military Students and the International Military Education and Training Program
International Military Students and the International Military Education and Training Program
by Samuel Gras
Introduction
This is an informative paper summarizing a specific United States (US) governmental program that provides financial and administrative support to international military students attending higher education institutions. I chose this specific area of interest within the broader field of international education because of personal experience and to attain more knowledge.
The primary area of focus reflected in this paper is the International Military Education and Training (IMET) Program. I describe the program itself while analyzing some of the differences and similarities between the experience and learning outcomes of military officers who participate in the IMET program, with international students at civilian schools. I also include some personal anecdotes.
The IMET program provides support for international military students to attend a wide range of US military schools and centers. Some of the most important of these include: service academies at West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs, and Virginia; military specific training centers and institutes such as the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center, Maneuver Center of Excellence, and Defense Language Institute; and post-graduate institutions such as at the Maxwell Air Force Base, Fort Leavenworth, the Navy Post-Graduate School, the Army War College, and National Defense University.?
International military students (IMS) in this paper are narrowly defined as uniformed members of a national military other the United States who study at a Higher Education Institution (HEI) or military training center in the US.
IMET
The most important bureaucratic program administering and facilitating the education of IMS in the US is known as the International Military Education and Training program or IMET. During fiscal year 2019, the US Department of State (DoS) budgeted more than $110.8 million for the program.[1] The budget proposal and selection of specific countries to participate in the program is an annual responsibility of the DoS. The Department of Defense (DoD) on the other hand is responsible for the execution of the program: designing and administering the educational curriculum; hiring and retaining faculty and staff; and providing student services and facilities.[2] IMET is one of several international programs that fall under the auspices of the Office of Security Assistance at the DoS.
The goals of the program as stated in a joint DoD and DoS Report to Congress are as follows:
Educational and Cultural Value
The IMET program maintains core military and academic functions such as: improving capabilities for future joint operations, improving regional stability, increasing the capabilities of partners, and providing the opportunity for IMS to attain Professional Military Education (PME)—which is often a requirement for officers to be promoted.
The IMET program is much more than solely military training and education though. Other components include the promotion of democratic values and human rights. It also serves to facilitate positive and enduring multi-national interpersonal rapport and mutual understanding. This occurs by educational and training interactions that develop professional and personal relationships among military members from a multitude of different countries with their US counterparts.[4]
The IMET program is often the first, and sometimes only, opportunity for international military officers and their families to become familiar not only with the US military as an institution made of real people, but also American culture and democracy through experiences and relationships gained while living in the US. In a spirit similar to the State Department’s motivation to increase mutual understanding between the US and world through the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP), the IMET program aims broadly to “create a better understanding of the United States.”[5] IMET consistently meets this goal.
In addition to high-quality and prestigious military academies and post-graduate military institutions, one of the unique and irreplaceable values of the IMET program is simply its ability to provide an academic environment and social venue for networking and relationship building between professional military officers. There is simply no equivalent program in international education except the various NATO schools in Europe that concurrently provide a military education with a multi-national cultural experience.
In addition to developing relationships between US and international military officers, the IMET program also provides an opportunity for IMS to develop better relations and to build trust among themselves. For example, I have friends and colleagues who were IMS from countries such as Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina; from India and Pakistan; or from Israel and Saudi Arabia; who each had difficulty getting along with each other before and at times during their IMET educational experience. It was especially rewarding to see them develop newfound respect and genuine friendships with each other by working toward common academic goals during their IMET experience.
Dimensions of the International Military Student Population
The DoS succinctly describes the IMET program as a “a low-cost, high impact component of U.S. security assistance.”[6] IMET is unique in the field of international education because it provides a program that is specifically designed to the serve the needs of international military officers and their families. Some student needs provided by this program are unique to the IMS population. These include but are not limited to:
Many IMS officers come from relatively privileged backgrounds. This can be an initial challenge when it comes to required exercise at 4:00 or 5:00 in the morning, field exercises, writing papers, giving briefs, or even general household chores to someone who is accustomed to living with servants. In one of the less serious examples of a cultural difference, I’ve seen US officers become frustrated and roll their eyes when their French colleagues kiss each other on each check at the start and end of every day. Despite some important nuances though, the overall needs of international military students are similar to their civilian counterparts as described later.
The IMET program is the main avenue through which tens of thousands of IMS have studied and trained in the United States since the program began in 1976. Every year 6,000 to 7,000 international students from roughly 135 nations attend more than 4,000 courses at approximately 150 military schools and installations through this program.[7] This population of IMS represents a little less than 1% of the total 886,000 international students enrolled in US schools each year (pre-pandemic).[8] Its qualitative dimensions are more impressive though. When the State Department describes the program as “low-cost, high-impact,” they are referring to the specific type of students and families who participate in the program and the learning outcomes that result.
Similar to international students who attend top tier civilian HEIs in the US, the competition and selection process for IMS to attend US military HEIs is strenuous, rigorous, and highly selective. As military officers, IMS have already distinguished or self-selected themselves as high achieving individuals with leadership potential, intelligence, and reliability. After this, the selection of IMS for education in the US produces an additional layer of refinement, which can result in IMS who are often the best and brightest among the officer corps of their respective countries.
Additionally, the IMS are often politically connected and influential. They return from their studies to become leading and even historic figures. From a long-term perspective, as the returning IMS become even more influential, the payoff from investing in their educational experience in the US during the IMET program continues to increase. Relationships can be leveraged during a future crisis. Real world knowledge can temper a former IMS’s behavior because of his or her more informed worldviews and better understanding of international norms. With respect to the often-overlooked socialization factor of international military education, I heard the Superintendent of the Air Command and Staff College consistently emphasize relationship building and networking over academic achievements to IMET and US students. It is with respect to these life-long relationships between future international leaders and their US peers that the IMET program provides an unequaled and unique service with such a high return on investment.
Controversy versus Reality
Many negative opinions of both IMET and IMS result from the historical experiences of the US and Latin America during the Cold War; when IMS who had studied in US military schools, e.g. The School of the Americas, were found to have committed human rights violations after returning from their educational duration of status in the US. Other examples involve similar human rights concerns with respect to Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, India, Myanmar, and Pakistan; or during coup d’états in Africa such as in Mail or Burkina Faso.[9]
These important issues helped to motivate changes to the IMET program such as more emphasis on human rights and the rule of law. Although public opinion often focuses solely on the negative cases, a wider comprehensive view of the holistic results of the program reflect a more positive impact of outcomes from this worthwhile and lasting initiative. For example, a 2006 academic study found a positive correlation between US military educational exchanges with an increased probability of political liberalization is the respective countries of IMS after they return from studies in the US.[10]
During numerous trainings and briefings I gave or attended with IMS at the Fort Huachuca Intelligence School or Air University, liberal themes with the highest moral standards were consistently espoused and emphasized during classes about the Laws of War, Geneva Conventions, human rights, proper treatment of detainees, equal opportunity, ethnic and gender rights, cultural communication, and civilian control of the military. These themes predominated to the nearly complete exclusion of any dubious moral advice as portrayed by the negative controversies.
Differences and Similarities to Non-Military International Students
Distinct qualities of IMS and their family members, together with the unique purposes and processes of the IMET program, make this population inherently different from civilian international students. These differences raise challenges and nuances for the international education manager, provider of student services, teacher, and advisor; whose jobs are to support this important population. At the same time, there are similarities to international student experiences at civilian HEIs, which should be familiar to those who serve student needs through the SEVP system.
One particular difference that stands out between IMS in the IMET program and international students in the SEVP program is the relative cultural homogeneity and discipline among militaries around the world. IMS enter US military schools already assimilated into the hierarchical rank structure of the military before they arrive. Military culture and norms of decorum are easily transferable between different countries. Although countries may perform a salute differently, the show of mutual respect and other cultural norms are universal and well understood. As such, a psychology study of the cross-cultural adjustment of international officers during PME in the US found: “social relationships are on more of an equal footing for IOs [International Officers] than for students, whose relationships are more asymmetrical.”[11]
Although I agree that cultural differences may be less marked with respect to rank structure and the norms and values inherent among different military cultures, there remains an element of intercultural friction or even culture shock between IMS and US military officers that is similar to their civilian counterparts. The following examples provide a nearly identical phenomenon I have seen from both civilian and military HEIs. There is a group mentality that forms among international students. A group of international students attending a summer institute at Indiana University formed a strong bond between other international students, while the American students formed a stronger bond among themselves. I saw this scene repeated nearly identically in two military schools; when the IMS became very close friends with other IMS, while the Americans formed their own exclusive homogeneous group. This example of international students forming a stronger bond with each other than with the US students is likely a commonly observed experience at both civilian and military HEIs.
领英推荐
Another of my previous experiences was as a sponsor to IMS. I had worked previously with international students and became close friends with the IMS. During this time, I noticed that some of the US military officers could come across as arrogant, lacking curiosity about other countries, and generally dismissive of the IMS. In one case, this resulted in an IMS feeling isolated and upset during social events and sports activities. Again, this is likely a common feeling among international students at non-military schools as well. In another case, a student took offense over the tone of some of the US officers with respect to the NATO bombing of Serbia. Even in a common military cultural, distinct histories and the social construction of different identities between international students and their US classmates will undoubtedly remain and influence relations regardless of whether the students attend a military or civilian HEI. Deliberate cross-cultural team building exercises and teaching can help to ameliorate and bridge this type of divide.
Some other qualities that stand out from the psychology study with respect to cultural aspects in the military that help IMS adapt better when compared to non-military international students are as follows:
Areas of similarity in needs and required services between IMS and non-military students abound. For example, international student advisors and service providers must offer support to both student populations with respect to:
In one particularly difficult example, I was sponsoring an IMS from Yemen while he was attending a military school in Arizona. The father of the woman he was supposed to marry who was still in Yemen disapproved of the marriage, cut the woman’s face with a knife, and sent a picture of her with a cut on her face to the IMS who I was sponsoring. I spent a lot of time and effort with the student delicately helping him with phone cards, companionship, and counsel to encourage him to finish school before returning home—for which he was very appreciative at graduation. As is the case with all international students, life at home continues while the international education experience in the US is occurring. I am certain that aspects of this sort of crisis management happens in a million different ways with international student advisors at civilian HEIs as well.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this paper describes the IMET program, its significant benefits toward mutual understanding and multi-national military relationships, its worthiness of continued or increased funding, and some of the differences between the experience and support needs of international military students with civilian international students.
One particular area of concern I have for the continued financial and political support of the IMET program is in relation to US foreign policy, counter-terrorism, and counter-insurgency. Now that the use of US ground forces for stability and non-conventional operations has become politically unpopular, the preferred approaches are “light-footprint” or “over the horizon.” Based on lessons from the Latin American and African experiences in IMET, the US inherits a certain moral responsibility for the later actions of those that it trains in foreign internal defense, security assistance, and through educational exchanges. As such, I am concerned that a preference for working through local forces may result in bad news stories down the road regarding human rights abuses or coups committed by people who received US military training and education, which could overshadow the broader benefits of the program. This risk can be mitigated to an extent through good training, documentation, advocating, refinement, and by articulating the overall benefits of the program.
?ENDNOTEs
[1] https://securityassistance.org/security-sector-assistance/
[2] https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/FMT_Volume-I_FY2018_2019.pdf
[3] https://www.dsca.mil
[4] https://www.dsca.mil
[5] https://www.dsca.mil
[6] https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/197601.pdf
[7] http-//www.state.gov/documents/organization/197601.pdf II 1-2
[8] Open Doors Presentation, (2014), Institute of International Education, p5.
[9] Correspondent, p1265.
[10] Atkinson, p534.
[11]Forman, p121.
[12]Forman, p120.
?REFERENCES
Andreopoulos, George (2002). Human Rights Education and Training for Professionals. International Review of Education, 48 (3/4). 239-249
Anonymous Correspondent. (1992). IMET and Human Rights. Economic and Political Weekly, 28(25), 1265-1266.
Atkinson, Carol. (2006). Implications of Material Power: Military Engagement and Socialization of States, 1972-2000. International Studies Quarterly, 50(3). 509-537.
Cufar, Irena. (2001). International Military Education and Training Program: The Slovenia Experience. The DISAM Journal, Fall 2001. 5-15.
Forman, Schahresad & Zachar, Peter. (2001). Cross-Cultural Adjustment of International Officers During Professional Military Education in the United States. Military Psychology, 13(2), 117-128.
Moskowitz, Elisa. (2008). The Creation of Expanded International Military Education and Training. The DISAM Journal, December 2008. 147-152.
Reynolds, Ronald. (2003). Is Expanded International Military Education and Training Reaching the Right Audience? The DISAM Journal, Spring 2003. 93-98.
Ruby, Tomislav & Gilber, Douglas. (2010). US Professional Military Education and Democratization Abroad. European Journal of International Relations, 16(3). 339-364.
United States Government Accountability Office. (2011). International Military Education and Training: Agencies Should Emphasize Human Rights Training and Improve Evaluations. (GAO-12-123).