“Operational Language” Gaps in American Security Assistance

1. Bureau for International Language Cooperation “Operational Language” Gaps in American Security Assistance Keith L. Wert Director, Partner Language Training Center Europe (PLTCE) George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies Wertk@marshallcenter.org www.marshallcenter.org/?pltce

2. Disclaimer The views expressed by the presenter are his own and do not reflect the official policy or position of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies, the US European Command, the Department of Defense, the US Government or the German Ministry of Defense.

3. Some Definitions “Operational Language” Language skills required for operating in a coalition environment. Language for special purposes not currently covered by existing courses or workshops; or if they do exist, the soldiers may not getting access to the training

4. Some More Long Definitions Security Cooperation: Activities undertaken by DoD to encourage and enable international partners to work with the United States to achieve strategic objectives. It includes all DoD interactions with foreign defense and security establishments, including all DoD-administered security assistance programs, that: build defense and security relationships that promote specific security relationships, including all international armaments cooperation activities and security assistance activities; develop allied and friendly military capabilities for self-defense and multinational operations; and provide US forces with peacetime and contingency access to host nations. Security Assistance: A group of programs authorized by Title 22, as amended, or other related statutes by which the United States provides defense articles, military training, and other defense related services by grant, loan, credit, cash sales or lease in furtherance of national policies and objectives

5. Definitions Breakdown • Security Cooperation: Activities undertaken by DoD to encourage and enable international partners to work with the United States... • The umbrella statement for all activities with allies and partners • NOT the legal authority • Security Assistance: A group of programs authorized by Title 22, as amended, ... • Title 22 is the legal authority for language training assistance • The State Dept. (MFA) decides, in essence, which countries get what • The DoD does not have separate blanket legal authority to provide language training assistance

6. Language Training In Security Assistance • Foreign Military Sales (FMS) • Buy a weapons system, get language training support as a part of the purchase • Possible problems: • Systems guys forget to include language training • Systems guys assume country will take care of it • Country assumes it can take care of it • Even if included, it is focused on the weapons system and not on future country language training capacity • The process is very complicated and very lengthy – for example, selling high-performance aircraft has a lot of moving parts

7. Language Training In Security Assistance • Foreign Military Financing (FMF) Grant Aid • FMF helps countries meet their legitimate defense needs, promotes U.S. national security interests by strengthening coalitions with friends and allies, cements cooperative bilateral military relationships, and enhances interoperability with U.S. forces. • Yes, it can support English language programs • Problem: The process is just like Foreign Military Sales. Focus tends to be on equipment and the process is very complicated and very lengthy

8. Language Training In Security Assistance • International Military Education and Training (IMET) • To further the goal of regional stability through effective, mutually beneficial military-to-military relations which culminate in increased understanding and defense cooperation between the United States and foreign countries • Formal instruction involving over 2,000 courses taught at approximately 150 military schools and installations; on-the-job training; orientation tours for key senior military and civilian officials; and mobile education teams which takes the curriculum to the host country.

9. Language Training In Security Assistance • International Military Education and Training (IMET) • Yes, it can and is used for English but not other languages • The focus is not English except to prepare students to take courses in DoD schoolhouses • It is not necessarily targeted at building partner language training capacity • Process and lead times are shorter than other “pots” of money, but can still take a year or more to see delivery of training, texts and labs.

10. Language Training Other authorities • Combating Terrorism Fellowship Fund (CTFP): • Could fund language training but must be directly tied to counter terrorism personnel • Limited use such as Combating Terrorism Language Program at Marshall Center - leads directly into Terrorism Program • Coalition Readiness Support Program (CRSP) • Can be used for “basic English language training to enable fundamental communication levels...” • Fifteen discrete steps for approval requiring the following elements to be involved: • - Partner MoD; US Embassy, US Combatant Command, OSD Comptroller, OSD Policy, Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the Secretary of State, the US Congress and so forth

11. Language Training Authorities: a last thought • There is an overarching foreign policy and strategy. Some countries are priority countries and some regions are priority regions • BUT when it comes to actual security assistance program execution: • None of this is regional • All of this is bilateral Which means there are a lot of reasons why English language support may fade into an afterthought or get accomplished as a part of the security assistance automatic process

12. Some Compressed History: NATO/PfP English Support • After the Berlin Wall fell: • Countries saw the advent of IMET programs vis-à-vis the United States: • English language programs were established in nearly every country over a period of years to feed military students into IMET program courses in the USA • 1992: DLIELC Language Training Detachment (LTD) established in Hungary • Permanent advisor/coordinator: 2 plus years • 1992-1995: Numerous temporary assignments in several countries • 1995: Effort to survey 11 countries and establish regional plan for English support • 1996 – 2007: LTDs establish in Czech Rep., Slovak Rep, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Albania • However each was established one by one on a bilateral basis

13. Some Compressed History: NATO/PfP English Support • The difference between 1992 and 2011 is a tremendous success story • The UK Peacekeeping English Project simultaneously established programs in many countries to assist with building language training capacity: teacher training, test development and self access centers • The US Defense Language Institute (ELC) deployed multiple teams and hosted hundreds of teachers in its instructor training courses; provided copious amounts of American Language Course materials and the US Government delivered scads of language laboratories • The countries themselves invested (and continue to invest) huge amounts of resources to meet NATO standards for language and to be able to take advantage military training in other countries

14. NATO’s Joint Analysis and Lessons Learned Centre • “Analysis of Interoperability Shortfalls in Current NATO-Led Operations” • 31 May 2010 • English identified as top problem • - English skill of assigned personnel insufficient • - Troop Contributing Nations don’t understand the language requirements • - English requirements increasing dramatically in multinational military environments • - Documents/correspondence too lengthy • - Countries’ language training courses vary considerably • - Complexity of interoperability experienced by forces deployed is often overwhelming • Many English native speakers are not proficient in communicating in multinational environment

15. Specific Operational Shortfalls • Operational Mentor and Liaison Teams (OMLT) • Intelligence Engagement Efforts (Tactical Intel) • Forward Air Controllers (FAD) (US: Joint Terminal Attack Controller [JTAC]) • Special Operations Forces Partnerships • Question: How are we missing real world operational language gaps for deployable forces? Blame?

16. Why are we missing operational language needs? • America’s legal authorities are based on processes which are very lengthy and were never intended to react to operational concerns • US Embassies which administer security assistance programs may or may not take into account a partner’s requirements for language in coalition operations or exercises • - If accounted for, it had better be well in advance to take advantage of current legal authorities and processes • NATO views language as a national responsibility and NATO does not really monitor or evaluate ‘language readiness’ of partners • USA military culture has only recently taken into account language requirements for the general purpose forces and that does not include whether partners are language ready • Allies and partners have not analyzed their language requirements with actual operations in mind

17. Why are we missing operational language needs? • Language experts/specialists are not normally involved in any of the planning • National language schools are viewed as service providers and are not consulted on potential language issues in international coalition operations • Sales versus Grant Aid • Billion dollar weapons sales with potentially large numbers of language students rivet the attention of the US military services while, in contrast, providing assistance to partners with its lower numbers of students is less attention getting, war or no war.

18. OSD Security Cooperation Reform Review (Draft) “In addition, there exists no standard planning framework across DoD and the U.S. to drive the identification of partner country capability and capacity needs. Discourse tends to jump immediately to the delivery of specific end items to a country, as opposed to a broader discussion about what partner country capabilities and capacity should be developed, how the partner capabilities support U.S. strategic objectives, and how particular end items contribute to the development of a partner’s capability.” Appendix A-3 “Planning”

19. Solutions? • I am a believer in champions over processes • Recommendations and process changes are fine - but frequently forgotten as personnel transfer and personnel transfers is the one constant in the military context • We need language advisors out of the schools and onto the key staffs that plan military partnerships and operations • We need language advisors out of the schools and into regions to ensure that the densely complicated legal authorities are actually used to build partner language training and testing capacity, rather than function on auto pilot • Finally, and much less likely, we need DoD legal authority to execute English language support without State Department concurrence so support can be nimble rather than plodding

20. Questions or Comments? Thank you