Delivering Cultural Competence

[nichols]

Unfortunately, the British Army is only a little over 100K strong (and likely to get smaller in the 2010 Strategic Defence Review) and so there is no spare capacity to enable our personnel to target their learning in this way.

This is where the UK acquisition bubbas need to get together when they are developing new training devices. Your total active duty manpower for October was just under 180k. I've seen contractors deliver training systems to individual units and being paid by those units for use only in those units. Specific to the Corps' language and culture stuff, we contract .mil wide licenses but pay USMC only license costs. UK MOD hould probably look aty contracting for the total force which in the long run will bring the price down.

We are beginning to get the Operational Language & Culture Training System (OLCTS). This consists of an initial language/culture acquisition via desktop of server, a sustainment piece for the iTouch, and a mission rehearsal piece for the first person shooter game. I was briefing/demonstrating these capabilities to members of the UK Army 2 weeks ago at I/ITSEC. It could have been just a drive by from the Brits but they were saying that they intended on getting this capability to thier units.

[Commando Spirit]

This is where the UK acquisition bubbas need to get together when they are developing new training devices. Your total active duty manpower for October was just under 180k. I've seen contractors deliver training systems to individual units and being paid by those units for use only in those units. Specific to the Corps' language and culture stuff, we contract .mil wide licenses but pay USMC only license costs. UK MOD hould probably look aty contracting for the total force which in the long run will bring the price down.

We are beginning to get the Operational Language & Culture Training System (OLCTS). This consists of an initial language/culture acquisition via desktop of server, a sustainment piece for the iTouch, and a mission rehearsal piece for the first person shooter game. I was briefing/demonstrating these capabilities to members of the UK Army 2 weeks ago at I/ITSEC. It could have been just a drive by from the Brits but they were saying that they intended on getting this capability to thier units.

I've seen, and used, the iTouch software a couple of weeks ago and it looks very good (I think those you spoke to were from my own branch!!) I'm under the impression that UK is asking for non-US phonetics to be looked into?

Not sure where you got the 180K from though - I suspect that is British Military rather than British Army? Army hasn't been that big since the cold war!!

[nichols]

I've seen, and used, the iTouch software a couple of weeks ago and it looks very good (I think those you spoke to were from my own branch!!) I'm under the impression that UK is asking for non-US phonetics to be looked into?

Not sure where you got the 180K from though - I suspect that is British Military rather than British Army? Army hasn't been that big since the cold war!!

Yes to the phonetics, the UK is thinking about doing this specifically for Pashtu & Dari. Australian MOD is looking at the same type of modifications.

180k was total active forces from last month....MOD site

[jenniferro10]

The instructor makes a huge difference.

As it is currently practiced, doctrine prevents the Sgt. without a degree- but with years of experience training polic officers in Iraq or Afghanistan, from leading or designing the sort of training that is actually relevant to our military's needs. However, the PhD with no recent field experience in the region is qualified. In fact, I am aware of an instructor meeting that description in the system right now that has spent a career studying Ireland, has no military experience, and is teaching an Islam-specific knowledge course.

The USMC CAOCL says (and I agree): "Instead of generalist historians, religion specialists, and journalists, younger personnel who combined recent operational experience with academic study, site visits, and debriefing of returning units conducted the training. In this respect, cultural trainers have been working to shorten the lessonslearned feedback loop from deployment to
deployment…he or she must be a Soldier or Marine who has recently deployed operationally to the AO in a job requiring ongoing interaction with the indigenous population--the division combat operations center watch officer from OIF-I will not do. MOS is not important here; interaction with Iraqis on a regular basis is." (“Advances in Predeployment Culture Training: The U.S. Marine Corps Approach”, Barak Salmoni and Paula Holmes-Eber)

[nichols]

The instructor makes a huge difference.

As it is currently practiced, doctrine prevents the Sgt. without a degree- but with years of experience training polic officers in Iraq or Afghanistan, from leading or designing the sort of training that is actually relevant to our military's needs.

I don't fully agree with your statement but the outcome is the same. We really don't have a doctrine for culture & language. We have some attempts at Training & Readiness manuals but nothing that we can turn to and say 'This is what we train to.'

There are lot of junior Marines and NCOs leading and designing training that hits the target culture, from my experience, this has been going on since at least 1981. The major issue is that there is no doctrine so the training being done on the small unit level stays at the small unit level.

When the culture specialist are highered to conduct training, the KSAs play into the highering process. Ultimately, because there isn't a clear defined doctrine the instructor usually is highered on a subjective basis.

[Commando Spirit]

The major issue is that there is no doctrine so the training being done on the small unit level stays at the small unit level.

When the culture specialist are highered to conduct training, the KSAs play into the highering process. Ultimately, because there isn't a clear defined doctrine the instructor usually is highered on a subjective basis.

I'm with Jennifer on this one; this is how doctrine should be produced. We identify a capability gap, develop local training solutions (as in your small unit trg) then capture that trg and the lessons learnt; which in tern identifies best practice, and this is subsequently written down as draft doctrine. Following the usual rigmarole of 2* and 1* approval it is then published.

All that noted, the cultural and language arena is a flexible one and so probably not best served by the doctrine slaves out there. How many of us read COIN manuals/papers and agree with them only to go back after another 5 yrs or so to find that we have done a complete U turn?

The Trg solution here, to my simple mind, needs to be one that is generic enough to be fit for purpose in any theatre but can also have modules of focussed trg interventions that are theatre specific - Afghanistan for example.

[nichols]

We identify a capability gap, develop local training solutions (as in your small unit trg) then capture that trg and the lessons learnt; which in tern identifies best practice, and this is subsequently written down as draft doctrine. Following the usual rigmarole of 2* and 1* approval it is then published.

Something that is missing is that once a capability gap has been identified, a requirement has to be identified and written. Going from gap to training solution will keep us in the current loop of just in time training that doesn't answer the requirement that was never identified in the first place.

'Things' can be built to a requirement, operational & maintenance funds can be sourced to a requirement that will last longer than a just in time solution.

[Commando Spirit]

The instructor makes a huge difference.

Agreed; the instructor is fundamental in all of this. These whizzo online or computerised trg solutions are fine for most but in my experience military personnel prefer to be talked to and be able to ask questions, that can't be done to an iTouch. The technical kit is a great back up, or reminder once deployed, but it does not and cannot replace a face-to-face frank discussion.

I anticipate that someone will jump on that with simulation examples; yes they do work for dvr trg and some scenarios, but as those who have done considerable work with 'indigenous populations' will know that there isn't a driver manual for it and so we have the adage of 'train for certainty; educate for uncertainty.' In the Contemporary Operating Environment it is great, and entirely appropriate, that service personnel 'know' what to do when things get noisy, or how to call in CAS but it is the thinking person that we need, who can do the 'so what' and understands the wider implications of that same air strike.

[nichols]

I anticipate that someone will jump on that with simulation examples;

Simulations only work if they are facilitated. No facilitation produces a game that wastes training time.

Simulations in context of culture & language also need to be facilitated. The problem is that the SMEs are not there to facilitate on a daily basis. Simulations can be looked at as the initial ball of clay being formed, it becomes a work of art once the fine details have been chisled in by the facilitator.

[jenniferro10]

I don't fully agree with your statement but the outcome is the same. We really don't have a doctrine for culture & language...

not so sure we disagree...

There are lot of junior Marines and NCOs leading and designing training that hits the target culture...The major issue is that there is no doctrine so the training being done on the small unit level stays at the small unit level.

I know, right? I read the materials for several of these classes while researching for something else. A lot of the materials are incredible. Too bad their makers and the contect just wanders away, and the wheel is regularly reinvented.

When the culture specialist are hired to conduct training, the KSAs play into the hiring process. Ultimately, because there isn't a clear defined doctrine the instructor usually is hired on a subjective basis.

What I have heard (a *lot*) is that the opposite happens- the instructor is hired according the a strict interpretation of the rules. If they have to hire the person with the most time in the field, you get the guy 15 yr old PhD research experience because he has 5 years in the field, and not the guy with two recent tours, because he has less than 5 years. You get someone with a Masters in anthro, with work in behavioral modeling but no military experience, *not* the guy with an undergrad in criminology who worked in intelligence in Iraq.

The key to the most effective training is shortening the feedback loop that gets lessons learned from the field into the training system. While I take exception to the statement that there is not clear doctrine on the instructor hiring process, "As it is currently practiced", training (both program standards, program eval, and trainer standards), knowledge management (KM), and COIN doctrine do not support the most effective cultural training.
-COIN doctrine provides the directive that we should have it, and leaves it at that.
-KM relegates cultural lessons learned to the types of KM tools from which we could never reliably get information out
-Program eval standards allow contractors to evaluate test performance at the end of a course, then say, "We're awesome!" There is no follow up on how that culture or language training was applied (or not applied) in the field.
-Trainer standards block the most qualified, in terms of recent field experience, from being trainers unless they meet byzantine guidelines
-(and this is what we really agree on, nichols) The culture training program standards are being made up as we go along, often by the contractors that are designing the programs (talk about foxes, henhouses, etc.)

But be careful what you ask for...flexibility is also required for effective cultural training, and doctrine doesn't provide that yet. Maybe it's better to be ignored so you can do what you want...

Sidenote: The Peace Corps has done this effectively for more than 40 years. They offer immediately relevant language and culture training to the same age group as most junior enlisted and younger NCOs, that they can implement at a highly functional level within 8 weeks. I've been through it. Institute for Defense Analyses and the Strategic Studies Institute have noticed it (report is here...their methods are not secret. Modifications for a military application are already being discussed, but no one would make nearly as much money off of this type of training...

One more thing (I swear): If ya'll think it would be hard to a build cultural interaction simulation that's effective, you should tell the companies that are building them like gangbusters, and to the People looking at buying them at I/ITSEC a few weeks ago.