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.