Every global U.S. military mission, both successful and unsuccessful, has resulted in unintended—or perhaps unavoidable—consequences both for U.S. service members and local populations and communities. The U.S. military’s next greatest weapon may not be a new weapon system, or a new class of submarine, but instead be more culturally aware, intelligent, and cross-discipline service members willing to accept nuance and complicating factors into their understanding of the world.
With 85 percent of Naval Reserve Officer Training (NROTC) scholarships awarded to Tier 1 and Tier 2 majors (engineering, math, and science programs), the four-year graduation standard already forces most midshipmen to overload every semester to commission on schedule. Combined with required summer training, this curriculum restriction allows for minimal education abroad, and does not allow for students to take many courses outside of their majors that delve deeply into policy, politics, economics, art, or history of the world. Currently, midshipmen are required to take Naval History, American History, or American Policy, and their core includes only one semester of World Culture and Regional Studies. How can new ensigns—destined to be Navy leaders in a delicate and nuanced geopolitical climate—live up to their expected potential when they have never challenged the concept of America’s greatness by being exposed to alternative points of view?
Except for a very narrow selection of Tier 3 majors—majors that are not promoted, encouraged, or even widely allowed—midshipmen are not able to accommodate semester study abroad into their four-year scholarship. Furthermore, after commissioning, only a handful of Navy ensigns, and no Marine Corps second lieutenants may attend graduate school prior to fleet assignment. (However, beginning in 2020, Marine options are allowed to service select to law programs. Though this is a step in the right direction, the number of Marines able to do this remains low). Service members are furthermore not given the opportunity to attend graduate school abroad except in the unlikely event they are part of the 0.7% of applicants worldwide who receive a Rhodes Scholarship or similarly competitive international fellowship.
Newly commissioned officers unable to attend graduate school at general and international institutions miss opportunities to expand and enhance the intellectual capital of the officer corps. The real world requires diplomacy, understanding, and empathy—things that cannot be learned without purposefully challenging biases. Cultural diversity has always been America's strength; and diversity of perspective is no different. Allowing service members to study at only American universities perpetuates the false idea that not only are American universities the only and best places to obtain a graduate education, but also that American ways of thought, government, and culture are the best and only “correct” way to approach the world.
The assumption that America owns the exclusive rights to being good and right—in the military, education, and protection of rights enumerated in the Constitution to which every service member swears an oath—prevents forward progress. Instead of challenging the way things have always been, we instead harken back to a time in which the United States was able to protect itself and successfully accomplish foreign policy objectives through sheer force of reputation, will, and ideology. Acknowledging the equity of graduate-level education in other countries opens doors for a more holistic view of the world.
Today, the collective unencumbered mentality of American exceptionalism leads many to ignore or deny real, systemic problems in the United States: increasing levels of domestic terrorism, violence against minorities, elimination of protected rights by the Supreme Court with the threat of more being eliminated on the horizon, and an insurrection and attack on the most important U.S. democratic institutions. While the military is not a domestic force, it reflects the ideals of society. If many American civilians think it is reasonable and acceptable to storm the U.S. Capitol when the results of a fair, democratic election are not in their favor, what will happen when Americans from that environment represent the United States’ foreign policy abroad with guns, warheads, and warships at their disposal?
The Navy and Department of Defense need to provide pathways to change the mindset of Americans who enter the force and give them the opportunity to learn from primary sources, not just the echo chamber of American social media and pro-American classrooms. Isolating the next generation of leaders from the opinions and perspectives of the rest of the world not only perpetuates a fantasy that American-born ideas of democracy and freedom will prevail regardless of circumstances, but also prevents the progress that comes from collaborative thinking. Instead, U.S. leaders must set an example of interconnectedness, question the state of the world, and work toward a better future.
Sending service members many institutions in the world may present a security risk or may be initially complicated. In this case, limiting programs to ones that are in allied or friendly countries, or even more narrowly to the ones in countries that host U.S. military bases would mitigate any extra security concerns. If fleets and personnel across the Department of Defense can be stationed or deployed in Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia, Germany, Israel, Singapore, Korea, Poland, Turkey, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Saudi Arabia and more, then surely the United States can develop further relations with these countries through the exchange of students and knowledge. Through the development of language and cultural sensitivity that comes from education abroad, these individuals will not only become more educated in their fields of interest, which benefits the fleet, but they also become cultural liaisons who are invaluable to U.S. foreign policy objectives.
The idea of creating connection between U.S. service members and foreign countries of disparate cultures, policies, and belief systems can be applied to more than just educational opportunities. Encouraging overseas exchanges with foreign militaries has historically led to the development of positive relationships and ensured that the United States understands the cultural and societal traditions of its allies. But most liaisons are service members with decades of service experience. If this exchange were to take place with sailors of all ranks—including young sailors —it would encourage more complex understandings of the world at all levels of membership and leadership. Understanding allies prevents cultural differences from becoming tensions that rise to the point of a conflict, and as global conflict becomes more likely, if U.S. service members better relate to and understand U.S. allies and partners, they will become a more effective, unified force.
It cannot just be O-4s and above who have the opportunity to serve at U.S. embassies as attachés. Even the opportunity to participate in an exchange with foreign militaries would not only benefit global relations but pose questions for service members about how they can develop a better community, better Navy, and better future for the United States.
The Navy’s best tool to quickly and affordably address operational challenges and create new strategies and tactics to deter enemies from acts that threaten global stability is the expansion of the minds of the officers who make the moment-to-moment decisions. Creating and fostering complex, multidimensional understandings of the world will give the United States the power to again take the lead role in fostering systemic peace.