Seems this thread has once again gained some much needed momentum.
Some great posts and equally great responses ! I’ll begin with David’s 09.2013 post.
Let’s first discuss the “almost always normal” process that takes place with training:
We offer or the host country requests - Both parties have to agree to training in or outside of the host country. It’s simply cheaper to send four instructors to Mali that a platoon of Mali to South Carolina. So, it happens in country.
The Country Team (as many or as few of the embassy members deemed necessary which varies from post to post) assesses the situation and the Host Country provides their concurrence and trainees. Once this has happened and the CT finds it a good idea, a Pre-Deployment Site Survey is organized (which often includes instructors that will eventually come back and perform the training). The PDSS determines that the CT is on the right path and that this training is tailored to the caliber of trainees in question and the problem is adequately addressed through training. It could and has worked out that we cannot provide the required assistance and training.
The CT then begins the vetting process both in country and then at home to DOS. Let’s keep in mind that vetting does not determine nor discriminate against one’s race, religion, or sexual orientation. It is designed to vet out human rights violators/violations.
The Pentagon is only as blind as the Country Team will allow !
DoD does not pull the hamstrings. The Ambassador (State Dept) does. If the CT fails to inform and address cultural issues prior to vetting, that’s their bad. If the CT’s agenda is politically driven, then all of the above mentioned info is just Bravo Sierra at this stage (that’s pretty much norm in Africa).
Kingjaja: I stress that it is the Host Country that determines and accepts training, and, provides the candidates. They can and have refused. But that rarely happens with free training, free conference trips to Europe and free equipment. Your military commander or President can tell the CT that the training being offered is below our candidates’ educational levels. At that point the PDSS will tune or turn off the training. In most cases, the PDSS will figure that out during the visit and take into consideration what the Host Country needs (this assumes the Host Country was requesting assistance and not the CT offering assistance). If the Host Country is not transparent, the system won’t work and will be a detriment to both parties. Having said that the US needs to be transparent too; not only with the host country but also her own public.
The US gets played because the CT is weak and lacks what most former colonial powers have learned over the decades. We also get played because the offered assistance is politically driven. Something neither you nor I can control. We just get to run with it and try and fix it along the way. See Bill’s excellent post !
If that was the case, their voices are not being heard at the CT and AFRICOM. All they need do is refuse. That however will more than likely be the last time they are offered assistance. Not something your administration is willing to risk (apparently).“The Nigerian Army is very prickly about the condescending tone of "US training"
General Ham is little more than a victim of his own command. He doesn’t make up his own speeches and is dependent on both his team and the CT in the host country. He is however on the blame line !
Hei Mikka ! It is up to each and every one of us to ensure we are not the culturally challenged ugly American. Some things do happen outside of the Diplo Circle at embassies. That depends on just how much the Ambassador values your opinion and trusts your judgment. That also means you need to have some big cojones at the CT, and, as John W opined, you could end up with a very short career path !
JohnT, Great post ! There are some great FSOs and FAOs. Some of the mistakes that keep FSOs from excelling are their 2 or 3-year cycles. If something new crosses their desk and there is little time to make the grade, the project dies. Can’t get the award in, then Foxtrot it ! Too much dependency on the end result being credited to a single person for an end of tour award. Had that happened here in 98 we would have never succeeded. Some great FAOs kept that from happening and the momentum and money never stopped.
Regards, Stan
Bookmarks