Quote Originally Posted by SWJED View Post
While not directly on topic your comment brought back to me two items that have intrigued me concerning cultural understanding in an expeditionary environment. A SF officer told me that his group sent members to an Indian reservation to do humanitarian / construction missions - several Australian officers told me of a similar program where they sent Army officers and enlisted to Aborigine reservations to do the same. The thought process here was they would never be able to train for all the possible cultures they might encounter in the future – but they were firm in their belief that it was the “mindset” that was important – once you live in and learn one other culture it is easier to adapt and operate in additional cultures down the road. Basically - one was more open-minded concerning cultural understanding. They also commented that certain personalities amongst the service-members were more conducive to accepting other cultures… Wish I knew more about this but both instances were relayed to me in passing…

Dave,

That is the central core of cultural understanding--the mindset. That's why I harp on 2 base rules---you have to have the mindset. Even the best linguist in the world is useless and may in fact be harmful without that mental framework. I have talked this issue with SF and FAOs and others; I believe the selection process has to include some form of adaptabilty measurement.

Where I have faulted the Dept of State in the past is their "adaptability" measures are really focused on how adaptable applicants are to a European/US centric environment centered on class structures and associated definitions of what constitutes "higher culture." In many ways the OSS and then the CIA followed the same path in selection and recruitment with he major exception that the OSS/CIA has always been willing to head hunt among the military, especially for covert operations.

Again Dave, you got it!

Tom