Delivering Cultural Competence

[jenniferro10]

Some general statements about the current state of cultural education in the US military, as I understand it:
1. The coursework available at cultural and language centers of the Branches, part of PME (Professional Military Education), is different than the PDT (PreDeployment Training) being delivered to units en masse.
2. Each Branch has gone about creating their own distinct academic and philosphical approach to their training program design and content.
3. Most research done on cultural training programs has been done in the business management sector, which can be problematic: the same behaviors that indicate a trainee's successful implementation of a cultural training program the business setting may indicate failure in the military setting. However, management research does has something in common with military doctrine as it relates to cultural programs: it makes a distinction between education (retention of country- or culture-specific facts) and training (acquisition of techical skills for use in situations). Suggestion: Black and Mendhall are two authors from which I learned a lot about the "training/education" distinction in cultural programs.
4. Still more problematic is the moving target of training doctrine: be prepared to see a lot of doctrine changes- fast- that reflect the requirements of COIN on the US military's training system.
5. The cultural knowledge and skills requirements for training Iraqi police officers are drastically different than what is required for infantry (i.e. war and MOOW have different requirements, as do the various MOSs, as do the distinct nature of each branch...).
6. The final test of any cultural education or training program: operational relevance. Period. If you know the language and art history of Wherever-stan perfectly and score a 100 on the test, but have filled your brain with facts irrelevant to conducting succesful operations, your program is not successful. A full understanding of culture in the area of operations is not required for successful operations, but total ignorance of the culture is a good way to create unsustainable "victories".

Broadly speaking:
-USMC, after initially taking a cultural awareness ("sensitivity"?) approach, has changed course and now uses systematized questions that can be used by both planners and operators to assess both the cultural inputs to a situation and the possible outcomes of an operation. They have two great textbooks that outline their approach, both of which are available for free.
-Both the Navy and Air Force focus on "cultural competence", and teach servicemembers general behavioral tools that will enable them to succeed as they interact with the servicemembers of other countries and with "locals" in the area of operations.
-The Army focuses on job aids and PDT with general culture- and country-specific information about history, language, and broad cultural norms.

When Mr. Owen objects to cultural training and calls it "impossible", he makes a good point. However, the fact is that cultural training is a requirement of COIN, welcomed by servicemembers engaged in training local counterparts, and a permanent part of the operations planning process (the decisions for which are being made at much lower rank than they were even 5 years ago). Ship: sailed.

So if cultural training is a given, what is the appropriate "training delivery required to deliver cultural competence to a post-modern Army"? It may be too late for you, but for me, the real issues are *not*:
-the appropriateness of cultural training *at all*
-education vs. training
-cultural competence vs. cultural understanding vs. cultural awareness
-or even the "correct" academic underpinning for interpretation of cultural facts.
Instead, I wonder if the correct way to deliver the best cultural training is through computer simulation (online gaming? Second Life? individual scenarios?), practical exercises, classroom study, or some other method.

I have a lot of resources for you, and will DM you on this.

[davidbfpo]

Commando Spirit,

Try 'TT' aka Terry Terriff, who has studied the USMC adaption and is now in Calgary IIRC. Occassional poster, so maybe worth emailing and a PM. Google him to find if my memory is off target and his bio has: Conduct research on change in military organizations. Most recent work has been on military change in the US Marine Corps.

[William F. Owen]

When Mr. Owen objects to cultural training and calls it "impossible", he makes a good point. However, the fact is that cultural training is a requirement of COIN, welcomed by servicemembers engaged in training local counterparts, and a permanent part of the operations planning process (the decisions for which are being made at much lower rank than they were even 5 years ago). Ship: sailed.

I do not say it is impossible. I'm saying that like most things the "WOW-COIN" generation has stumbled across, the intent is good, but the execution and understanding, are usually either wrong or over stated.

a.) What do we mean "culture?" - it's a woolly imprecise term of no actual use to soldiers, in the context it is being used.

b.) The primary requirement is to teach soldiers how not to cause offence or make situations worse by being rude or disrespectful.

c.) The British Army did this for 200 years and took it for granted, when and where it actually mattered, and it was done via local language training - in theatre, to officers.

We're close to making "COIN" into a pseudo-science, (some already have) and we need to start getting rid of some of the rubbish attached to that. IMO, ditch the "cultural competence/understanding" stuff and instead boil it down to:

• Language training (3 levels)
• RELEVANT Local beliefs, customs and courtesies.

Keep it simple and effective.

[Tom Odom]

We're close to making "COIN" into a pseudo-science, (some already have) and we need to start getting rid of some of the rubbish attached to that. IMO, ditch the "cultural competence/understanding" stuff and instead boil it down to:

Language training (3 levels)
RELEVANT Local beliefs, customs and courtesies.

Wilf

Stan and I were immersed in this stuff for decades. We still are. I agree that some take it too far. We need to tone it down to make it achievable and relevant. I have taught this on the platform and mentored it in the field.

Local beliefs, customs, and courtesies are the exterior trappings of what is important. If you miss those it makes communication and understanding difficult. If you only teach those, you only get the dog's bark and not why the dog is barking.

The basic rules to me remain:

1. they don't think like you
2. everything they do with, for, or to you is agenda driven

I can then hang the language, customs, etc on the framework and start to understand the effects of these things, the reasons for them, and then the golden ring--what they are likely to do next.

Best
Tom

[Dayuhan]

The basic rules to me remain:

1. they don't think like you
2. everything they do with, for, or to you is agenda driven

If "agenda driven" begins to seem a negative quality, we do well to recall that everything we do with, for, or to them is also agenda driven and that their agenda is as compelling to them as ours is to us. In many cases their commitment to their agendas is likely to exceed ours; what's being done by both parties is being doen in their communities.

I'd add one more rule:

When you see people doing things that make no sense at all to you, don't assume that they are stupid or deranged. Assume instead that there is some element in the picture that you don't see... because there are always elements in the picture that you don't see.

[Stan]

... and then the golden ring--what they are likely to do next.

Best
Tom

Dead on the mark, Tom !

This I consider to be the singular indicator of true integration - Second guessing your adversary in his own back yard ! Tom and I would literally cruise around a population of 5 million as if not a care in the world - during a civil war, social and political upheaval.

Well, we also liked the gunfire and watching the tracers every evening over a barbecue at Tom's was kinda neat too

However, even with the best FAO training available and purported years of experience, some just didn't get it

[William F. Owen]

We need to tone it down to make it achievable and relevant. I have taught this on the platform and mentored it in the field.

My point and I concur 100%

Local beliefs, customs, and courtesies are the exterior trappings of what is important. If you miss those it makes communication and understanding difficult. If you only teach those, you only get the dog's bark and not why the dog is barking.

Well I assumed you would teach the "Why", not just the "How", because you again are 100%.

My biggest take on this is yes, we do need to teach "common sense stuff." -cos it's not so common. - but I get annoyed when "common sense stuff," that needs pointing out, gets treated as "rocket science," and "discovery" - because its sets you for compounding the error every time. Folks love to pile on process.

Going abroad? Some language and knowledge of customs maybe useful? No?

[jenniferro10]

a.) What do we mean "culture?" - it's a woolly imprecise term of no actual use to soldiers, in the context it is being used.
b.) The primary requirement is to teach soldiers how not to cause offence or make situations worse by being rude or disrespectful...
...IMO, ditch the "cultural competence/understanding" stuff and instead boil it down to:

• Language training (3 levels)
• RELEVANT Local beliefs, customs and courtesies.

Keep it simple and effective.

All points addressed in my original post, with no exceptions.