Exporting Influence: U.S. Military Training as Soft Power

• Date: 01 February 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/0022002720957713
• Published date: 01 February 2021
• Author: Carla Martinez Machain
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Exporting Influence:

U.S. Military Training as

Soft Power

Carla Martinez Machain

1

Abstract

The US engages in extensive training and education of foreign militaries, often

through exchange programs carried out at the different military services’ staff and

war colleges. Researchers have recently explored the way in which military training

can affect civil-military relations in the host country, but not much work has studied

whether military training actually leads to increased US influence in these states. This

paper proposes a soft-power theoretical framework to argue that foreign military

training can create affinity for the U.S. that can in turn result in more pro-U.S. voting

behavior in the UN General Assembly. It further expands on the military training

literature by distinguishing between different military training programs.

Keywords

military power, foreign policy, foreign aid, international cooperation

In the second half of the twentieth century and what has elapsed of the

twenty-first, the most popular military training programs for foreign officers

and enlisted personnel have been those run by the United States (Monitor

2017). In 2017, 72,245 trainees from 139 countries received military training

from the United States in twenty one different programs. This was actually a

significant drop from the 2016 number of 128,280. In 2017, Afghanistan was by

1

Department of Political Science, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS, USA

Corresponding Author:

Carla Martinez Machain, Department of Political Science, Kansas State University, 244 Waters Hall,

Manhattan, KS 66502, USA.

Email: carlamm@ksu.edu

Journal of Conflict Resolution

2021, Vol. 65(2-3) 313-341

ªThe Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0022002720957713

journals.sagepub.com/home/jcr

far the largest participant, with 48,400 trainees. Other large participants included

Lebanon, Ukraine, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. These trainees

engaged in a variety of courses, including training in peacekeeping, counter-

narcotics, combat and/or technical skills, cybersecurity, border control, com-

mand and leadership, and rule of law (Monitor 2017; Goodman et al. 2017).

While there is variation across fiscal years, approximately half of the training

cost is paid for by the United States itself. Why is it in the interest of the United

States to provide training for foreign militaries? What benefits does the U.S. get

in exchange for foreign military training and education?

From the perspective of the recipient countri es, it is more straightforward to

understand why they would agree to have their militaries trained and educated by

the United States military. States want their militaries to be as effective as possible,

and emulating the most powerful military is one way to do it. This view was echoed

by foreign military officers interviewed for this project, who emphasized how

American military training is valued by home country militaries more than training

from other states.

Turning to the United States’ perspective, academics and practitioners have long

assumed that foreign military training gives the U.S. increased policy influence in

the recipient country (Atkinson 2010, 2014; Foreign Military Training Report 2017;

CGSC Coordinator 2019). At the same time, policymakers have struggled not only

with monitoring graduates and gathering enough information to evaluate the effec-

tiveness of foreign military trainin g programs, but also with determin ing which

metrics to use to evaluate their effectiveness (GAO 2011). Therefore, the questions

that this paper asks are the following: Are states that participate in military

exchanges more likely to develop foreign policies that are compatible with those

of the United States? If so, what are the circumstances under which this aim is

accomplished most effectively?

I approach this question through a soft power theoretical lens. Despite the

military itself being a traditional hard power tool, foreign military training

programs are a way in which foreign servicemembers can be socialized to hold

more favorable views of the U.S. This follows from a contact theory-based

argument, which states that foreign military students are able to interact directly

with American instructors and fellow students during military training and edu-

cation programs (Allport 1954; Allen et al. 2020). As the foreign students share

common experiences with their American counterparts, develop personal rela-

tionships, and are immersed in American culture, they feel more affinity to ward

the United States (Pettigrew 1998). Military training and education programs

thus establish transnational professional networks that can give the U.S. influ-

ence in some of the higher positions of governments. Even in non-military

regimes, the military leadership can exert strong influence in policy outcomes,

particularly with regard to military-related matters (Feaver and Gelpi 2005;

Lupton 2017). The empirical findings suggest that especially in states where

314 Journal of Conflict Resolution 65(2-3)