RSS

February 29, 2012

Benjamin Newton Brower, Independent, Bronze Contributor (22)

That was a very good piece Lt. Baulig, but I do have a few questions concerning your position. Would you include the NATO nations military academies in your proposal to have the officers also trained in a wider NATO sense? Also how could this be presented to politicians so it can be less spun as a loss of sovereignty? It always seems to be a thorny issue among European nations, and the United States as well.

February 29, 2012

Stephanie Theresa Baulig, University of the German Federal Armed Forces, Silver Contributor (61)

Dear Benjamin,

thank you very much for your answer and your questions.

To start with, I would like to point out that the number of words was limited so I decided to centrally focus on my idea. How these NATO Academies can be put into practice surely is another question. As I mentioned, in most countries there definitely is the infrastructure to build up such academies.

To answer your questions clearly arranged, I just follow the order you asked them:

- As you might know there are already exchanges between NATO member states e.g. officer candidates - but definitely not to an extent I would call it a real cross-cultural NATO exchange, these are mainly small programms for a handful of candidates. To replace the national officers' schools, NCO schools etc. would deny these countries their souvereignty at some extent - a national tradition referring to military service in general is absolutely necessary! I do not aim at a military levelling in the meaning of educating all NATO soldiers the same way (despite their education should be comparable, but here, we are on a good way), but to give soldiers the chance to get to know their allies and friends they might be fighting shoulder to shoulder one day. This can be reached by developping a mutual basis, by a common sense of understanding and by personal experiences which can be accomplished at an academy of the type I suggested.
You mentioned namely officers - I would like to add that it is all of our soldiers who have to get the chance to make this experience, starting from the Private up the a General (who surely does have experience) - since on the battleground ranks do not matter any more and a soldier has to trust the one next to him.

- When it comes to presenting this idea to politicians - who mostly will disagree at first since this venture will be pricy - one has to point out the enormous advantages: Cross-cultural exchanges do not only help people to understand each other in a different way and better, but there are various economic chances, new investments attract intrustry, new jobs can be created and last, but not least it can be a unique chance, especially for smaller member states, to present themselves as cosmopolitan, supportive and reliable partners. Given all these advantages whilst almost no loss of souvereignty weights against them will certainly convince politicians to co-operate and to provide NATO the infrastructure and the staff which is necessary.
Here I would suggest a 1:1 translation: For every soldier who is send to a NATO Academy abroad, one place in a national NATO Academy has to be created. Thus, the burden of costs will not be beyond a member state's capability of contribution.

There might also be the question of what should be taught in these academies: Here, all NATO partners have to work together. Tactical specialists, ethicians, fitness coaches, political scientists and other specialists have to come together and actually just update, improve (in some points) and spread existing programs as they are already taught at NATO schools (here I can only refer to Oberammergau, Germany). Moreover, since every nation has got their own weaponry, I would foster an exchange of knowledge and training in this area as well.

You are right, Benjamin, that all this might be a "thorny issue" among NATO member states, I would phrase is as a more or less charming pigheadedness sometimes, but if we want to reach that not only our poliicians, not only our soldiers but also "just normal people" stop talking of "them" referring to other NATO states, but use a "we" instead, creating NATO Academies might be a promising step towards this objective.

Despite being a soldier, I do not lose political and social needs out of sight. And although NATO is a military alliance, I stronly emphasize a procreative interaction of all these aspects.

Kind regards,

Stephanie

February 29, 2012

Greg Randolph Lawson, Wikistrat, Platinum Contributor (522)

Good idea here. Strengthening cultural ties as power shifts from West to East makes a lot of sense. While I am sure that concerns over sovereignty are real, the need to keep some "ties that bind" must take on some amount of urgency otherwise even my notion of a circumscribed, intra European stabilization force will be untenable. That would be unwise.

February 29, 2012

Donn Baca, DePaul University, Bronze Contributor (25)

Lt. Baulig,

My thanks on your piece, you make some excellent points. I would first though like to apologize to you and others because I am starting to feel like I'm being largely critical of each topic submission and certainly don't wish to be. At my age, I am very much a pragmatist though so I feel compelled not only to point out difficulties, but realities which in almost all cases make the difficulties become almost certain points contributing to ultimate failure of concepts if implemented. I really don't want to be hypercritical or a detractor.

As a former soldier myself, I must personally convey my interest and support for joint training and educational exchanges. In my own case, I was an Army Cadet in both high school and University (for 8 years) and fully expected to die on Central European battlefield fighting alongside West German forces. That all changed in 1989-90 at roughly the same time I was to take my commission and the Soviet Union/Warsaw Pact collapsed. Most of my friends and fellow cadets are now retiring as Colonels and such after 20 years of duty. I was always somewhat jealous of those comparative few who were able to do exchanges (or train and participate in exercises with other nations) when I was not able to, often due to very competitive selection for limited openings. Joint exercises at least provide for larger numbers from each force and various units to work together. Certainly a degree of comaradery and esprit de corps occur in between various nations forces when engaged in joint international exercises (let alone multi-national operational deployments). Of course in most cases that is largely a perception which stems merely from knowing other nations are engaged or training alongside in some joint capacity. I say that because the reality is that very few from any force structure ever directly engage/interact with their fellows from another nation's force even during a joint exercise or deployment. As we all know that interaction is largely going to be limited to staff level coordination/communications. The bulk of exceptions would merely be the handful of units which are physically adjacent to a partner nation's forces in the field.

As much as I personally welcome joint international training and deployments, especialy for the health and strengthening of an alliance - I have in some cases heard complaints that some units in particular get tired of joint operations, training exercises or deployments. Personally this is not a position I share, I for one love to be in the field and on maneuvers (not all military personnel do though).

There is unfortunately a serious problem (and some lesser ones) with your proposed initiative in regards to it helping to overcome the "we-they", "feeling together", "our NATO" problems which NATO is struggling to contend with. The most important aspect relates to practical/effective scope/scale. Just as only a relatively very smaller number and percentage of troops ever directly interact with their fellow allied personnel, very few would be able to do so under the program you suggest. A program that I do support though, because everything little bit helps. I have to sadly disagree with you in regards to overall value and potential positive impact of NATO personnel spreading the message after having participating in these programs. One would generally assume that our troops become the greatest ambassadors for NATO after doing so or following their service alongside other nations. I won't even suggest that the opposite is true, because I have rarely heard cases where troops say negative things about allied forces, even when problems have existed. But I will also assert that other than in the mess halls, I rarely if ever hear any speak of the positive experiences either. It just doesn't seem to be the nature of most military men and women in my own experience. Yes, if questioned or interviewed and directly approached, our men and women become excellent roving ambassadors which could truly and greatly change the perceptions regarding NATO (as our alliance) within their respective nations and greatly enhance public support.

Physically the scope/scale of what you propose would really need to be enormous to produce those result (at least in my opinion). It certainly wouldn't be possible for all to do so or realistically for very many to do so. In most cases a 1-1 model between host-exchanging nations won't really work due to the sizes of various nation's forces, academies, etc. U.S. forces for example dwarf the forces of most of its alliance partners, so it couldn't really exchange enough participants within the same program initiative proportionally as its smaller allies. Throughout NATO as a whole, small percentages would be able to participate from some nation's forces while others might have very large proportions.

The United States forces especially also presents another problem NATO is only one of its alliances and one of its global areas of interest and operations. This makes U.S. forces the most difficult to integrate into academy/exchange scenarios. In terms of existing academies, they would almost certainly have to either be enlarged considerably or new ones created, because they are already highly competitive for slots. Each case within a nation of its own citizens not having slots for its own in its own institutions would create inherent resentment. Who wouldn't hate to be "bumped" for a "foreigner"?

I would also point out lastly the language situation - English has become the default language. Right or wrong, for better or worse. Personally due to my expectations of fighting in Germany/Central Europe I studied four years of German. But to this day, even when I am Germany or places such as switzerland, I hardly ever get to use a few words since everyone else seems determined to speak English. My ex-wife is Czech, and I couldn't even get her to teach me Czech - her attitude was always "there are only 12 million people who speak it, why bother?" and I hate to agree with such an attitude, but it is practical, especially in an integrated alliance context..

Sadly I believe that the United States (and Canada to a far lesser degree) being on the opposite side of the Atlantic Ocean creates many innate problems. In the era when the U.S. maintained its large resident/base population more Americans were truly a part of (our NATO) and Europe was a part of their lives and world. Overcoming that change is the challenge. For Europe, the enthusiam gap between alliance nations interms of affinity and public support for NATO vary considerably by nation. I don't think I see this academy/exchange initiative idea doing much to overcome that. From a tactical and strategic standpoint, terrorist organizations have been wise to allow many nations especially within collective-security organizations such as NATO to maintain the belief that they are not at war, in imminent danger or under attack. This fosters the enthusiasm gap within those alliances.

Aside from those elements, I do support the idea of NATO "academies" and greater exchanges to augment the presently limited degree of exchange and interaction. My apologies if I'm misinterpreting some of your concept. I know that you were limited in submission length, so I also tried to factor in your follow-on response. I enjoy your posts, so keep up the efforts and dialogue!

Regards,

DB Baca
DePaul University - Chicago

February 29, 2012

Donn Baca, DePaul University, Bronze Contributor (25)

sorry for the typos...hard to do texts on the mobile tablet device I'm on...Android/autotext can be a pain sometimes...

February 29, 2012

Stephanie Theresa Baulig, University of the German Federal Armed Forces, Silver Contributor (61)

Dear Donn,

thank you very much for your detailed comment – and you really do not have to apologize for being “hypercritical” since I am a true fan of criticism: It is vitally important and necessary to unveil weaknesses or errors of an idea and thus to make it better.

I can understand your feeling of jealousy for the ones who did get the chance to take part in exchanges – to some extent I share this feeling. For me, working in a multinational battlefield should not start on deployment, but a lot earlier.

Moreover, I share your impression that these interactions seem to be mainly reserved to “staff level coordination/communications”. But recent deployments show that joint and/or combined operations become more and more common, which supports my idea of mutual education for a limited time. This enables our soldiers to hark back to shared knowledge (tactical, ethical, and normative). Thus multinational patrols on deployment can be fulfilled immediately, standardly and correctly. Basic knowledge of today’s tactic knowledge (which is ever-changing as well and has to be constantly adjusted) can be taught in NATO Academies under deployment conditions (e.g. multinational squads, out of familiar environment etc.).

Personally I can understand why you mentioned the complaint of some soldiers about the quantity of maneuvers. One must not forget that soldiers have a family background, too (just like “normal people”), they have a home and deployments take them to foreign places frequently enough. Add here multiple NATO maneuvers abroad – sure, this is their job, but on the other hand, soldiers have to stay motivated, at some point “happy with their job” and they need a stabile background (I do not mean too soft conditions for soldiers, however the perception of changing values forces military leaders to care more about the “work-life-balance” of their men and women).

That is another reason why I suggest a rather giant project instead of a quantity of smaller measures. Here I would especially like to emphasize the length again: Normal maneuvers of NATO classes hardly last for more than a couple of weeks. Whereas three months, which I propose as a minimum, give soldiers the chance to get into the country, the new situation and to open up for new impressions (such as language, culture and the host country. It is time that makes the difference here!

Coming back to the values that all NATO members have in common, the situation at a NATO Academy might be strange at first, but getting to know comrades of various other member states literally “fighting for the same” surely will have a positive impact.

I understand your argument that a 1:1 translation might be challenging. The size of national forces differs extremely! Sure the “send one – host one” [soldier] principle cannot be realized immediately, especially for the US, due to the size of the US forces. However it would fairly represent the real conditions and also enable smaller member states to send and to host soldiers. US soldiers would get to know a European country and get the chance to see that there is a difference, but not when it comes to values and mutually shared ambitions. And Europeans will get a chance to see that their own government might decide the same way as American ones and that NATO is an organization where both continents work together, not against each other.
Referring to my own experience again, I have to admit that I tend to switch to English quite easily and quickly – in order to avoid complications of communication and due to the practical aspect you mentioned as well, Donn.
The position of English as the language of communication within NATO dialogue is incontestable, no doubt. The reason why I suggested additional language classes, including the language of the very host country is as simple as clear: Just a few words in your own language open your ear. You see that the person speaking to you tries to be understood and wants to start communicating. Add here the time factor again: Three months is considerably long, so soldiers will certainly get in contact with the population of this country. Knowing just a little of this foreign language plus the fact that the person is a soldier from an allied country, a NATO country will leave a mark and a lasting impression. This is the civilian-military interaction that is undeniably inevitable to foster the thought of “we are all in the same boat”, we have a mutual basis and since I know this soldier tries to speak my language and maybe understands what I respond and if there ever is a threat, he or she will fight shoulder to shoulder with our national forces.

Just like you I cannot get the image of the ocean between the two NATO “blocks” out of my mind. Sure, there are two continents, different mentalities and interests, but still I am impressed that NATO did not disappear after 1990, no, it re-invented itself and put more emphasis on common values that are shared by all its member states. As you said, today’s enemies are not obvious, clearly visibly nor ever-present any more and I dare to say that especially my generation is so used to peace that the idea of being involved in a military conflict seems very far away (at least for civilians). We have to find ways to bring this latent danger and the ability of NATO to be ready to defend our values back in their minds.

I am convinced that NATO academies – which are a giant project – will encourage people to start thinking of “we” again!

Kind regards,

Stephanie

February 29, 2012

Megan Ann Reiss, University of Texas-Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, Silver Contributor (34)

Hello Stephanie,

I have enjoyed reading your article, the elaboration of your proposal in your response, as well as Donn Baca’s response.

How could we do a critical assessment of this program? To do this, we would first have to define what it is we’re trying to accomplish. Are we creating a greater unity among NATO soldiers, or among the whole populace in NATO States? For these two different goals, we would come up with different measurements. Simple comparative polling between the troops who have gone through these new academies to determine their level of cohesiveness with their NATO cohorts should show whether or not they work (and serve as a more definitive answer to Baca’s response that they may not be as effective at creating unity as we would hope). We would also have to come up with a measure of how much unity justifies what would be a huge increase in costs for NATO States, not just startup costs but future, yearly costs. We’d also want to continue surveying soldiers over a couple years to make sure any gains are maintained.

Alternatively, if we assess that our goal in this project is to create additional unity among NATO populations in general (both soldiers and civilians) then we will need to survey the general population to determine if there have been gains in cohesiveness sufficient to offset the costs of this program. I am a bit skeptical that gains would actual result from this program within the general population, especially if the economic costs of the program are known to the public.

Baca commented that the language barrier may not be as critical a hindrance on cohesion among soldiers as assumed. I could see how you may argue against this, especially since interactions among soldiers will take place in their native language if it is a mutual native language. However, if most soldiers already have a mutual language (English) then it would be unwise to spend significant time and resources on getting all soldiers to be able to converse in the language of the place to which they are deployed. Languages take time...sometimes years, to learn well enough to converse effectively. Additionally, many people (especially adults) do not have an aptitude for learning languages, and calling for unnecessary language development could simply be a case of throwing resources at an unwise and unnecessary venture.

I want to echo Baca’s concerns about the additional time for deployment for those involved in these schools. A strong criticism in recent years for the US decision to fight conflicts on two fronts is that it requires soldiers to increase their number of overseas deployments. The number and length of deployments puts great strain on families. When soldiers are placed on deployments overseas, as would be the case for Americans who were sent to these training facilities in Europe, families would be disrupted. Any disruption will need to be justified, adding a requirement beyond just monetary gains to justify the creation of these schools.

The biggest concern for the implementability of this plan will be, of course, costs. The US is concerned that it’s shouldering the military costs of defending Europe. This plan will not help...in fact, it will require additional costs for the US. The EU is in a financial crisis. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said at the 2011 Munich Security Conference that over the past two years, EU defense budgets have shrunk by $45 billion, the size of Germany’s annual defense budget. While people within NATO generally agree that we should keep defense budgets constant (see the latest German Marshall Fund Trends) we need to get the people in NATO States and their representatives to actively prevent a shrinking of NATO. A costly program that necessitates large amounts of additional training for all NATO soldiers is going to have a very, very hard time getting passed, especially if we’re having a hard time simply maintaining current NATO budgets.

What could we do on a smaller scale to test these ideas? I think we could take your idea of an exchange school and either tailor it solely for a select group of officers or a small group of soldiers and determine the costs and benefits on a small scale, as I propose above. We could see who is willing to pay for these ventures, if anyone. Or, simply, we could test these ideas on soldiers coming out of the current exchange programs---although we would need to qualify the difference in responses between those soldiers who apply for the current programs and those who would be mandated to go through these academies. Given sufficient enthusiasm and sufficient gains in unity (again, after figuring out if the unity is meant to be for solely NATO soldiers or among States in general), we can try to expand the number of these schools, perhaps to the general population of soldiers.

Sincerely,


Megan

February 29, 2012

Stephanie Theresa Baulig, University of the German Federal Armed Forces, Silver Contributor (61)

Dear Megan,

thank you very much for your thoughtful and constructive response. Would you just give me a few lines to explain my point of view referring to a couple of your conclusions.

Firstly, I would like to point out that my aim is to develop a sense of togetherness among NATO member states, a "we"-feeling, to put is simple by giving soldiers the chance to get to know their comrades from other countries as well as the country itself and its people.
Since there is no comparable program so far on NATO level, I would like to mention the example of officer candidates exchanges in which young soldiers take part for several years in the officer candidate education program in another country. It can undeniably be said that these soldiers have developped a unique sense of understanding, adaption and flexibility in the same time. Not only do they know their own country, but also another one, its culture, its language, and its people. Surely, three months is a lot shorter but I am sure that positive effects and character developments will be visible.
As I mentioned already, one of the key arguments is the civilian-military interaction that will take place in various situations. NATO is not only politicians, not only soldiers, but the population of all its member states as a whole.

As Donn did, you raised your concerns about the language, too. I agree that language training takes time and I do not intend to demand perfection within three months, but I think that if you live in a country, even as an adult, you get to learn a language a lot easier. Speaking a foreign language is a precious gift. You mentioned that most soldiers do already have a mutual language (English) - but that would not justify a refusal to learn another language, wouldn't it? Here I allow myself to bring the example of people who are very proud of their language and charmingly stubborn about speaking other languages. Just a few words in this very language might be able to break the ice and allow cooperation instead of silence.

I have raised my concerns about the additional stress going along with a stay at a NATO Academy in another country in my response to Donn - I am married and I have two children myself which makes any kind of absence horrible for me. However, I would prefer a goal-oriented training in a safe allied state instead of taking part in three NATO maneuvers in which I am mostly a supernumerary and barely get some really positive feedback. On the other hand, I have to say that this is the risk in a soldier's life - since almost all armed forces consist of professional soldiers they know what they have to do to fulfill their assignment. If I have to move due to a new assignment, I have to do so, if I have to take part in a maneuver, this is my job... Still I prefer a more "comfortable" and safe assignment serving a stable unity.

In my article I have foreseen in some way your argument of the costs... I also consider it to be the most obvious, the strongest counter argument. Sure it will cost a lot of money, especially in the beginning. Smaller nations might have problems to find a solution for this financial challenge. But add here the aspects that new jobs will be created, entire areas of a country will profit from the presence of the soldiers and/or potential costs for alternative courses for a country's own soldiers will be omitted. Apart from these effects, most countries minimize and specialize their armed forces along with new technical devices replacing costly old-fashioned material.

Scaling down the idea of NATO Academies will end up in an unmanagable amount of high-rank manned NATO exchanges again. There are NATO schools offering courses already, but not to that extent which would be necessary to create a common perception of "we, all NATO soldiers". Moreover these schools do not offer classes for all ranks which I think is extremely necessary.

However I would support your idea to start testing my idea with prototyping a few NATO Academies first - the success and the sustainability of this project will convince also those who are frightened of the costs and make it obvious that this project will create a new era of thinking among soldiers as well as among civilians: They will perceive NATO as the custodian of their mutual values and break down the invisible walls that separated "us" from "them".

Thank you once more for your ideas and suggestions!

Kind regards,

Stephanie

February 29, 2012

Donn Baca, DePaul University, Bronze Contributor (25)

Stephanie,

Excellent points, and must say too that I personally greater prefer the longer lengths and essentially "immersion" approach. I feel a strong affinity in regards to Europe, probably much more than most Americans. I absolutely think our shared kinship, ancestry, values, traditions, etc. are stronger than any other blocks of nations. As I mentioned in regards especially to the language issue, I hated agreeing with my ex-wife's position in regards to the value of doing so, because I did so only in the practical sense in terms of military cohesiveness. My own personal argument and response to her was in many ways related to your own in regards to the points/merits - She would ask "why learn it?" and I would always respond "hmmmm...how about because my mother-in-law, my father-in-law, your sister and everyone else in your country is Czech and I think it would be nice to at least make the attempt to learn a little out of respect..."

I just can't understate my agreement and support for any efforts - even if they are just limited ones to broaden the extent of exchange, interaction and exposure to our partners and their nations. Nothing broadens a person or an organization more than doing so. I wish amongst other things that more people, especially Americans engaged in programs such as "study abroad" and other hosting/exchange programs. Cost is a major obstacle for most unfortunately...and I am not an internationalist or "one-worlder" as some might like to see us become - I don't want us to be a homogenous world...I want us to explore each other's uniqueness and appreciate the special qualities of each. That sort of approach fosters respect and appreciation for others which is far healthier while very much allowing us to hold on to our national and cultural identities.

A famous line from my favorite movie character Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird), has Atticus telling his young daughter "you never really know a person 'til you've walked around in their shoes..." People don't generally spend enough time getting to know or understand others, but when we try and do so to some extent, I have seen little outside of military/combat service which builds affinity more successfully.

I think what you suggest is a marvelous approach to doing that...it builds real affinity, the sort that we do tend to share with others as experiences. I personally love when we are able to get our servicemen and women to open up about their experiences, although they tend to avoid doing so, especially in regards to traumatic and personally painful experiences such as in combat...but when we do have them in a public forum, they and their experiences, especially the good ones turn them into the best roving ambassadors. They and their families are definitely the best advocates for the unity which we would like to see - "Our NATO".

Teamwork, brotherhood, confidence and character-building, etc...all the various qualities that our forces help develop within the fine men and women in our armed services, are incredible and a real asset in the public realm. Your concept is one which could help add visibility to both the people within host nations, as well as the home nations of guests/participants following their return to their homelands...the extent to which that might occur or could be facilitated is difficult to ascertain, but the efforts would be beneficial no doubt. Structuring it given enormous size disparities remains my biggest potential concern - scope/scale. Very complex barriers, but ones that are worth trying to overcome.

DB

February 29, 2012

Stephanie Theresa Baulig, University of the German Federal Armed Forces, Silver Contributor (61)

Dear Donn,

thank you for your encouraging answer.

I would just like to add that you mentioned an important word I avoided so far : Respect.

Referring to our values, we (so, the population of all NATO member states) are equal, still the obstinate impression that some might be more equal than others is always present.
We should all work with each other on a par, not offering privileges to any nation nor discriminating against another.
This very respect cannot be taught in a class room, it has to be incorporated by personal experiences and "character-building", as you perfectly phrased it.
At this point again, I am sure that NATO Academies will offer the possibility for many soldiers to learn a lot: About themselves, about their host country and about our mutually shared values!

I really liked your quotation, it expresses figuratively what has to be done to foster cross-cultural and -national interaction and dialogue!

Kind regards,

Stephanie

March 1, 2012

Andrew Barr, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Silver Contributor (72)

Stephanie,

Thank you for such a well-considered proposal! I really enjoyed your piece. I must apologize for my lengthy response; your points raised many great questions.

I have to say that on the whole, I really support your idea for NATO academies. As you point out, current exercises are largely lacking in the cross-cultural exchange that is necessary for strengthening identity within the Organization. The sovereignty issue that is discussed is important, and you address it well, although I am cautious about your caveat to make attending a NATO academy through random selection mandatory for all members. As a US Navy Reservist, most of my experience comes from a training atmosphere, and this exposure has increased my awareness of and appreciation for the intricacies of personnel management, namely the detailing system. At a time when changing budgets and political attitudes are necessitating cutbacks and reorganization, a proposal to mandate detaching personnel for extended periods to attend NATO academies will face fierce opposition.

The time commitment issue was raised by Donn and Megan, and you addressed it very well- though it may place a strain on service members and their families, the military is a series of sacrifices, and those who join its ranks do so knowing full well what commitment. Regarding the point that such time periods were unnecessary, commonality is not something that can be built through merely a few weeks or months of contact. As you said on another post, Stephanie, you had participated in joint maneuvers that had been much abbreviated, and little to no cultural exchange occurred.

All the components of the suggested academies that you outline are essential to a community-building program, but the establishment of the academies of themselves is a hurdle that will be difficult to overcome. The possibilities for job creation and the increased training opportunities that such institutions would create are in theory possible for motivators for academy establishment, but as I’m sure you’re aware, military leaders are not likely to acknowledge the importance of long-term job growth over the short term difficulties individual units will face regarding cost and personnel issues. You’ve addressed the issue of cost with our colleagues, but in my personal experience, personnel placement issues (perhaps a result of budgetary turmoil) are a vital part of the cost discussion.

The arbitrary placement of personnel to the academies lies at the crux of the problem. While the bonds of collective security reach across the entire Organization, important regional and strategic partnerships exist within the framework, rendering some partnerships more effective than others. Thus, sending a state’s military personnel to another a country outside its regional or strategic structure may not yield the same results as an exchange elsewhere, and will undoubtedly draw additional opposition the military and government leaders. This is not to disavow the importance of exchanges regardless of strategic importance; merely my intention is to emphasize the increased pressure that many commands are experiencing, and the impact this stress may have on the implementation of your proposal.

What might serve to offset this stress is to tie participation in the academy exchange program into a greater system of international accountability. As every service person knows, cost/benefit analyses and impact reports are heavily relied upon by militaries to determine if a given action was worth the cost. Although the establishment of NATO exchange centers would undoubtedly be a great asset to the Organization and a means of augmenting feelings of community, motivating member states to participate (especially in regards to sovereignty issues, which you discuss) on the merits of the academies alone will be additional point of difficulty. Such difficulty might be overcome by quantifying participation levels, providing measurable incentives for academy participation.

As I mentioned above, for the most part I completely support your suggestions for what should be taught in the academies, with one important exception. You say that “since every nation has got their own weaponry, I would foster an exchange of knowledge and training in this area as well.” Here you are certain to run into vehement objections, especially from states with more advanced weapons systems. Countries work very hard to keep operations information at a classified level, and will not support initiatives to share such information, even among allies. While this of course depends on the nature of the information, the principle of information sovereignty is not one we should ignore as we craft a proposal.

Although I understand the logic behind this suggestion, ultimately I believe exercises like language training, cultural education, immersion and leadership studies will all have an important role to play in building community, along with the tactical specialists, ethicists, fitness coaches, political scientists and other specialists you mention. Nonetheless, whenever we veer into a discussion of the technical, we must be prepared (and rightfully so) for objections from member states regarding sovereignty and security concerns.

Lastly, I commend the notion of expanding the availability of cultural exposure through the academies to non-officers. These individuals make up the majority of military personnel and are just as effective in increasing feelings of commonality and shared purpose through NATO, ever seeking to turn “they” into “we.” Their effectiveness and that of their superiors and civilian counterparts can only be improved through their participation in NATO academies.

March 1, 2012

Andrew Barr, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Silver Contributor (72)

Megan,

Your comments were also very constructive! You raised several fascinating points. I wanted to discuss your statement that “calling for unnecessary language development could simply be a case of throwing resources at an unwise and unnecessary venture.” The commonality that you previously mention that comes from a shared knowledge of English as an essential foundation, but language learning goes far beyond simply becoming proficient (although that is a large part of it). While personnel at a NATO academy may not speak like natives by the time they leave, they will have accomplished several things that completely justify the costs of training.

First, the assumption is that language training will be a shared experience among personnel from different states; this environment will necessitate shared problem solving and collaboration and an interpersonal level, extending far beyond the purview of current joint training operations.

Second, the process through which one learns a language can be applied to learning other languages as well as approaching other problems. Thus, it is vital that we emancipate ourselves from the superstition that proficiency (again, as important as it is) is the only reason to send someone to receive language training.

March 1, 2012

Stephanie Theresa Baulig, University of the German Federal Armed Forces, Silver Contributor (61)

Dear Andrew,

thank you very much for your answers - as well as your questions! I would like to answer some of your questions as well as to comment on some of your notions.

I suggested a random selection intentionally. As a matter of fact, there are countries whose relations are better that those between others. As I mentioned, no country should be privileged nor discriminated against. Enforcing an assignment in a random manner every soldier statistically has the same chance to be sent to any other NATO member state. To me, this seems fair and assists in avoiding political disagreements. Given modern computer programmes, a selection as I suggested will be easily realizable.
Furthermore you mention "regional and strategic partnerships" that already exist: These partnerships are important, no doubt, but they can be fostered in other ways, such as traditional maneuvers for example. This random selection system creates new possibilities and may be able to bring countries closer even if there has been little dialogue before.

In one of the next paragraphes of your answer you refer to a statement of mine in which I claimed that NATO maneuvers were too short to really get into another country. I referred to maneuvers of the length of max. two weeks.That is indeed very short, whereas the three months I proposed would give a soldier enough time to acclimatize and yet this period is not too long to give him a chance to get "homesick" in any way. The length of three months is simply a suggestion. However I would not advise a significantly shorter not longer period: Too short stays will not be worth the efforts, too long stays will ressemble a real deployment instead of a training course in a allied country.

I might have been not precice enough when I mentioned common weaponry training before. I do not suggest, in now way, the total exposure of national weaponry! This would indeed seriously violate a country's souvereignty! No, I encourage a basic training-oriented exchange of knowledge. There is a pratical reference: Since joint/combined operations are a daily occurence on the battlefield today, allied nations soldiers' should necessarily know their comrades' standard weapon to be able to go on fighting in certain cases. The same suggestion can be made for NATO member states' armed forces' vehicles. I would like to emphasize once more that I do not refer to classified information or weaponry!
There are differences in standards between almost all countries which might cost a soldier's life in combat. I propose to foster a general understanding for allied weaponry.

Lastly I would support your suggestion to also expand the idea of exchange on civil personnel whose influence and importance I would never deny (these are the "men and women behind the scenes" who keep it all going). However I would see this as a second step: If prototyping NATO Academies has convinced all skeptics and doubters, we might be able to justify an exchange of civilians as well. In a small number, these exchanges already take place, but definitely by far not goal-oriented and efficiently enough.

Thank you once more for your constructive ideas and notions!

Kind regards,

Stephanie

March 1, 2012

Stephanie Theresa Baulig, University of the German Federal Armed Forces, Silver Contributor (61)

Dear Megan, dear Andrew!

Just another short comment:
At this point I totally agree with Andrew!
Learning a language aims first and foremost at understanding another person - therefore one does not need a professional knowledge!
If you have ever been to France, you will know how incredibly happy you can make a French just by saying "Bonjour" (I may note that since I am half French - they do not like any other language but their own!). Thus, one simple word opens the door to a prosperous communication - maybe not a perfect one, but a "real" one.

Especially smaller NATO member states need this kind of acknowledgement, I think, I make them feel an equally positioned state within the Organization - it shows them that they are not only accepted, but respected.

Kind regards,

Stephanie

March 1, 2012

Megan Ann Reiss, University of Texas-Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, Silver Contributor (34)

Dear Stephanie and Andrewl,

Please do not misunderstand me. I do not have an aversion to language development nor to any sort of cultural exchange to create an understanding of a culture, although I hold firm to my belief that language is not an aptitude for all. Just as it could lead to greater unity, among soldiers who do not find the courses to be beneficial, or who find the classes overly difficult, or who simply do not seem like a good use of time, the classes could be detrimental towards a soldier's assessment of NATO. Perhaps, instead of having a mandatory program, we could instead call for a greater number of opportunities for those who wish to expand their skills, or an opt-out option if a mandatory program is implemented. Simply adding another three months to basic or officer training for those who will be assigned to NATO action seems untenable otherwise.

I believe that we do, however, need to stress costs and benefits. Language classes could, of course, have benefits beyond merely language development. However, I think we do need to consider how significant the costs will be both financially and for families. I think it will be a hard to sell a very expensive language program without a real end product that will be useful to the military---especially if it entails paying soldiers, housing soldiers, paying for infrastructure and administration costs. Additionally, unlike student immersion programs, this would be for adults with family commitments, and any sacrifice servicemen make for the government needs to be fully and completely justified and necessary. Three months away from a family would be a very long time unless that time is completely necessary-especially if that will be in addition to the time a soldier is expected to be deployed.

Which leads us to a problem: we are attempting to create a 'we' in NATO. Will the general population be convinced to fund a program to create a 'we' in NATO if they don't hold see themselves through that lens, the lens of 'we'?

All this being said, I want to say that I appreciate your sacrifice, and I know that it will be much easier to sell an extra three months of service away from home to military families than it perhaps would be to the general population. I'm almost sure you exemplify this, Stephanie. I know, personally, that whenever my father (who is a Captain, Navy branch) has been gone for work, I have felt pride for his service. I just think we have to be careful about all that we ask the military to sacrifice.

Most sincerely,


Megan

March 1, 2012

Stephanie Theresa Baulig, University of the German Federal Armed Forces, Silver Contributor (61)

Good morning , Megan!

As you accurately state, we have to stress costs and benefits - when it comes to the NATO Academies, I am convinced that the benefits will outweigh the costs by far! The effects will be a measurably increased public support of the ideas of NATO, especially based on the feeling of mutually shared values. At no point I would deny the immense costs, but I would like to emphasize the various advantages of this project, thus a stronger inner coherence, identification with and support of NATO.

If you leave the choice whether to take part in such an exchange or not up to soldiers, I am not sure whether the situation will really change in´a succesfull way. Most countries would prefer "using" their soldiers for national assignments in the first place instead of sending them to a cross-cultural course. That is why I support the idea of obligingness, to make it a mandatory part of soldiers' education.

When it comes to language classes (which should be a supplementary offer apart from the main efforts: creating a feeling of togetherness on a military level) I simply see them a a necessary part of cross-cultural exchange and a sign of respect from the side of the soldiers who attend a NATO Academy. No one expects them to speak the language perfectly after their assignment, but it contributes to a better understanding und knowledge of other nations for sure. There are numerous language teachers teaching soldiers already and they all report about the positive effects mutual language knowledge has on creating a unity. I am well aware that the ability to learn a language may vary a lot among soldiers - which should be no reason to not teach them!

With more and more soldiers taking part in such assignments, the "general population" will be aware of the "variegation", the complexity of NATO and start feeling as a part of it since they are hosting friendly soldiers.

I hope I could dispel some of your doubts and explain my intentions.
Thank you very much indeed for your suggestions.

Kind regards,

Stephanie

March 1, 2012

Benjamin Newton Brower, Independent, Bronze Contributor (22)

@ Stephanie,

Thank you for your feedback, it was very detailed. I mainly asked my questions because I did not know much of the NATO cooperation structure, and military structure in general. I do agree that every soldier should be included in a NATO education program, I was just asking about the officer corps because they were not really mentioned in the piece.

March 1, 2012

Costinel Anuta, George Marshall - Romania Association, Silver Contributor (37)

Dear Stephanie,

I enjoyed a lot your practical article and, if you allow me, I sense you emphasized another mandatory point of the final memo – the NATO spirit. How would we define it, promote / share it, is it a military esprit des corps, is it a political / social responsibility, is it the need to protect democratic values or human rights – the answers to some of these questions would help articulate that spirit. We are talking about interoperability, jointness, commonness and so on, but which are the real coordinates of a NATO spirit?
I do not agree with the critics saying that a network of NATO Academies would not change allied publics perception regarding the Alliance. I think that even by the very presence of NATO cadets on the allied national territories the publics would have the opportunity to interact with them and become aware of Alliance’s purpose and goals. However, I’m trying to see for example, which would be the difference between the NATO Academies network proposed by you and Alliance’s current education and training network, especially with regard to the present Centres of Excellence architecture.

Regards, Costinel

March 1, 2012

Donn Baca, DePaul University, Bronze Contributor (25)

Costinel,

I have to disagree to some extent with the "I think that even by the very presence of NATO cadets on the allied national territories the publics would have the opportunity to interact with them and become aware of Alliance’s purpose and goals." assertion.

I say that based upon two points, the first is that the scale and numbers involved would have to be very large indeed in terms of exchange/academy participation, for there to be much visibility within the host nations. Those within proximity to any of the general populace in host nations would also naturally be largely visible to the very same small number of people on a routine basis...unless you were constantly moving them about geographically. The other bit that certainly plays a major role in that aspect is schedule...you won't find many cases of military "academies" of any kind in my experience where the cadets or other participants have much free or leisure time to speak of. As a result, there would be quite limited potential for them be out and about among the general populace. I will speak for some of my fellow soldiers in saying that the bars, restaurants and night clubs would see the most (and of course that could get a bit rowdy and could create negative views as well)! ;-)

All that being said, I do support broadened exchanges...

DB Baca

March 2, 2012

Costinel Anuta, George Marshall - Romania Association, Silver Contributor (37)

Dear Donn,

I wasn’t thinking at extensive / large scale contacts, but at the fact that even knowing that there is a NATO Academy / training center / whatever in their area, the people would at least become interested in knowing more about the Alliance. Furthermore, there is always room for interaction with the community during special events (such as national holidays) or by organizing special events yourself (for example while studying at the George Marshall Center we organized a “traditional” event – the Culture Night – with guests from Garmisch-Partenkirchen community). In other words they will become aware of a sort of NATO “presence” otherwise difficult to perceive. I’m not talking of a large scale impact as I said, but there will certainly be a sort of impact, at least in the area where the institution would be located.
There could be also negative views, I think they would be unavoidable, of course.
And I also agree with your remarks regarding the geographical and schedule restrictions.
Last but not least, I think that the problem of NATO “presence” within the Allied territories is gaining an increasing significance, despite Alliance’s media campaigns, public diplomacy endeavors and online interaction.

Costinel

March 2, 2012

Stephanie Theresa Baulig, University of the German Federal Armed Forces, Silver Contributor (61)

Dear Costinel, dear Donn,

Thank you very much for your encouraging comment.

I see that we both share the idea of a “NATO spirit”. Personally, I would define it as a cross-cultural feeling of togetherness, the public awareness of the values uniting the alliance and defended by it. This esprit de corps cannot be seen as a unilaterally military aim, but a social one having an impact on all social layers.

Regarding your question about the difference between already existing NATO education centers such as NATO schools and the academies I am suggesting, I argue that only a handful, mainly high-ranked military personnel is involved in military exchanges so far – I would not deny the importance of the NATO guided education of officers who will be burdened with a lot of responsibility on a potential battlefield and thus need an excellent education. However I would like to point out that officers do not represent the main part of the armed forces. If we want to start creating a sense for shared values among them, we need to give all ranks the possibility to experience NATO, to meet other nation’s soldiers, to see other countries they would be defending as well. At this point, NATO Academies would perfectly complete experiences such as from NRF maneuvers etc., but with some more theoretical parts.

Referring to Donn’s argument that there might be little spare time due to the schedules, I would like to mention an example: When I was on a two-week course in France, we did have a lot of classes, trainings etc., still we did find time in the evening and on weekends to explore the closer surrounding area, to meet people and to get to know a bit more about the region and its history, culture etc. Moreover I know from several comrades who were assigned to take part in longer courses that trips have been organized, to combine e.g. tactical education and a city trip – however this course has not been perceived as some kind of holiday since requirements have been strictly surveyed, instead it fostered cross-cultural exchange perfectly.

Moreover… yes, I admit that there are always more or less true prejudices (referring to your night-club and getting rowdy concerns, Donn), still I would not count that as a strong argument. Things like this happen to truckers, tourists or students and cannot generally or singularily be transferred on a military context. Sanctions will be a lot more strict for soldiers than they would affect civilians.

However I share your opinion, that personal contact is a major condition to foster a feeling for mutually shared values.

Kind regards,

Stephanie