The International Military Education and Training (IMET) program, utilized by the DoD to train partner militaries and build lasting relationships has come under scrutiny in the last few years. Opaque results that are not highlighted to the larger DoD community along with security risks jeopardize the programs future. So how does this program benefit the U.S. military, and by extension the taxpayer, and do the benefits of the program outweigh the costs? This article will present a firsthand overview of how IMET functions in the field, along with its foreign military organizational impact, its contribution to intelligence gathering, and the criticisms that surround the program. Analysis will show that the benefits of IMET outweigh the risks, and that it is an integral part of U.S. foreign military cooperation and diplomacy.
During my In-Region Training (IRT) in Kyiv from 2019 to 2020, I was privileged to visit the Ukrainian Forward Line of Troops (FLOT) in the Donbas with two U.S. Army attachés who were working in Ukraine at the time. The conflict in eastern Ukraine had slowed to a WWI-type trench warfare, with both sides digging into the frozen landscape and occasionally deploying sniper teams or calling for indirect fire on opposing positions. My goal for the trip was to see how the Ukrainian troops were training and fighting in this static war and how U.S. supplied equipment performed in those austere conditions. Instead, what I got was a firsthand example of how IMET improves military to military connections and simplifies cooperation.
In the beginning of our trip, our party visited units from Operational Tactical Group North, the command group tasked with defending Ukraine against separatist forces in the northern regions of the Donbas. We arrived at our first unit, an infantry brigade, where the staff officers and commanders greeted us and ushered us into a large conference room where they delivered a detailed briefing on the current tactical situation. They gave us an up-to-date situation template, friendly array of forces, and a complete profile of indirect fires that included locations, caliber, point of origin, and duration of attacks from separatist forces. The overall impression from this meeting was tremendous. The brief itself was well planned and organized, with subject matter experts present to brief and with time built in for questions from the gathered leaders. It was apparent that the officers in this meeting had been instructed to familiarize themselves with enemy SOPs and were encouraged to answer questions and offer inputs with little fear of stepping on a superior’s toes. One of the subordinate units from this brigade, which we visited later in the day, even allowed us into their operations center to observe in real time their active and passive observation capabilities along with accurate battle tracking information. It was phenomenal and I soon discovered why the engagements with this brigade were so fruitful. The brigade commander, who volunteered to be our guide and liaison for the first leg of our trip, attended and graduated the Army Command and General Staff College through the IMET program. He knew exactly what aspects of the brief and which priority intelligence requirements benefited the defense attachés and instructed his subordinates to hone in on specifics and to eliminate the superfluous. It was a superb example of what American-Ukrainian military cooperation could look like in the future. I left wide-eyed and hopeful that the caliber of this interaction would be repeated across the FLOT with other units.
The second day of meetings, however, was a lot less productive and, unfortunately, was closer to the status quo to which the attachés had grown accustomed. The unit we visited on day two set up their Tactical Operations Center in a small alcove of buildings surrounded by giant mounds of mined soil that punctuated the cold wind-swept plains. This meeting harshly contrasted with the meetings of the first day and consisted of an unremarkable brief delivered by staff officers tasked with the routine duty of handling foreign military visits. The meeting was bland with no current operational information, no view into their operations center, no tactical information from the subordinate units, and no observed SOPs from the separatist forces. I was left with the impression that, to these Ukrainian staff officers, we were just another scheduled foreign military visit that added additional work to their week. The lack of engagement was palpable, and we therefore decided to end the meeting as graciously and quickly as possible.
Why did these two meetings reach very different outcomes and leave such differing impressions? The likely answer is the impact that an IMET-trained Ukrainian leader had on the visiting attachés. His experience from the U.S. Army Command General Staff College equipped him with insights into U.S. military thinking and operational planning, allowing him to eliminate the unnecessary pomp and formalities that often plague military to military interactions. That brigade commander served as an example of how host-nation interactions can be magnified and refined through use of the IMET program.
The benefits of IMET grow immeasurably when applied to a more expansive challenge like ministry of defense-level reform. Imagine a ministry of defense that is given the Herculean task by its political leadership to reform its doctrine and reorganize its personnel to comply with NATO standards, such as conforming to the J-structure staff system. Having personnel on staff who understand U.S. military culture, doctrine, and decision-making processes would prove indispensable.
This example is not just a theoretical concept. The Republic of Georgia realized the benefit of fostering closer ties to the U.S. through IMET and is using the lessons taught in U.S. military institutions to reorient to a Western model of military standardization. One colonel in the Georgian Defense Force pioneered the establishment of a training program based on the U.S. Army’s Maneuver Captains Career Course, of which he is a graduate. His newly adopted course better prepares Georgian military students in maneuver warfare while providing better trained leaders for the military. Georgia’s investment in IMET further benefits the country by building closer ties to U.S. leaders and facilitates integration into multinational training events, thereby enhancing interoperability and improving military to military relationships. IMET paves the way for Georgian-Western military integration and cements ties with Western military leaders on the tactical, operational, and strategic level.
IMET further benefits the U.S. by complementing the pool of Human Intelligence (HUMINT) sources available, thereby diversifying the ways in which information is received and shrinking potential gaps in painting the operational picture for U.S. decision makers. Russia’s war against Ukraine has provided just one example of how a gap in HUMINT can complicate strategic assessments, leading to an incomplete picture of what’s happening on the ground. LTG Ben Hodges, former commander of U.S. Army Europe, admitted as much, stating that he had “overestimated Russia’s capabilities,” and overlooked the impact that internal corruption in the Russian Ministry of Defense had on its invasion of Ukraine.
Why the glaring oversight? One of the factors contributing to this miscalculation was the over-reliance on intelligence gained by technical means. These technical means, heavily dependent on cyber and space technology, provide some clear advantages, such as cost effectiveness, reduced risk to personnel on the ground, quick deployment, and continual observation of areas of interest. However, an over-reliance on technology can leave gaps in the complete intelligence picture, masking the impact that the human dimension can have on an operation. This is because military actions including deployments, war, and strategy are ultimately derived from human minds and therefore a human on the ground is often the most effective means to provide a detailed understanding to leaders who are far removed from the event. Programs like IMET can help plug the gaps in information and provide these on the ground insights, tying competent foreign military personnel to U.S. service-members who can then paint a more accurate picture for decision makers.
Despite all its benefits, IMET has received its fair share of criticism, which only increased following the 2019 shooting in Pensacola, where a Saudi lieutenant killed three people and wounded eight others in an unprovoked terrorist attack. This attack led some critics to argue that the program’s insufficient security screening procedures had allowed a radicalized foreign service member to exploit the IMET system and enter the U.S. The death of these three U.S. service members was tragic and resulted in the temporary suspension of Saudi IMET students from training in the U.S. Additionally, former Secretary of Defense Dr. Mark T. Esper mandated a reassessment of the screening procedures for all future IMET candidates’ writ large, following the tragedy. Currently, IMET applicants are screened for personal health problems, past participation in or connections to human rights violations, and other potential problems. If an applicant satisfies all screening requirements, an Invitational Travel Order is issued and they are allowed entry into the U.S. for the purpose of attending military training.. However, background and social media checks are not absolute and persons with nefarious intentions make it through the screening process. This risk, however, does not negate the positive returns gained by the U.S. military through IMET and it is worth contrasting this one tragic incident with the thousands of success stories that the IMET program has produced. IMET provides a network of capable counterparts across the globe who can gainfully contribute to conflict resolution and mission integration with the U.S. military at a relatively low cost, thereby acting as a force multiplier to expand U.S. capabilities and partnerships.
As argued in this article, the IMET program provides immeasurable benefits to the U.S. military at a relatively low risk and low cost. IMET trained foreign military officers prove to be indispensable when a partner nation undertakes military reforms to closer resemble the U.S. Likewise, IMET trained soldiers can better integrate and operate with U.S. forces, producing immediate results based on professional, standardized operational knowledge. However, the most beneficial reason to continue the IMET program is to fill the gap in information gathering. IMET provides the U.S. with military contacts who understand our unique idiosyncrasies and are more willing to work with U.S. military representatives, thereby providing the crucial internal analysis that is often missed in intelligence gathered by technical means. Although risks exist in welcoming foreign military personnel to the U.S., those risks are mitigated through vetting and background checks, so that the benefits gained far outweigh the potential dangers. As the 2022 National Defense Strategy States, “close collaboration with Allies and partners is foundational for U.S. national security interests and for our collective ability to address the challenges that the PRC and Russia present, while responsibly managing the array of other threats we face.” A foreign service member thoroughly grounded in the doctrine and operations of the U.S. military becomes an asset wherever our troops are stationed. IMET is a beneficial program that yields tangible returns on investment.
About the Author
Major Casey Kapetanov is currently serving as a 48E in the Conventional Arms Control Division at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency where he travels to Vienna, Austria to support the U.S. Mission to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (USOSCE). His previous assignments include Ukrainian language training in Arlington, Virginia and an In Region Training (IRT) assignment to the US Embassy in Kyiv. Major Kapetanov’s professional education includes Joint Service Staff College (Joint Professional Military Education Level II) and Naval War College (Joint Professional Military Education Level I.) Major Kapetanov holds a bachelor’s degree in history from Weber State University and a master’s degree in international security from the Naval Post Graduate School.
Want to publish your news from the field, or something else relevant to the FAOA community? Email editor@faoa.org to start the process.