Delivering Cultural Competence

[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.