Creating a new path for joint education - joint professional military education

Joint Force Quarterly, Spring, 2002 by Robert M. Antis, Claudia H. Clark

Increasing challenges are raising the operations tempo for military organizations and for personnel deployment, complicating training and education. An important aspect of readiness is the ability to plan and execute new missions amidst the turmoil. Combatant commanders and their staffs must deal with humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, enforcement of no fly zones, noncombatant evacuations, and new types of war against terrorism. Thus Joint Pub 3-0, Doctrine for Joint Operations, states, "training and education programs focusing on joint, multinational, and interagency operations should be developed and implemented." It is imperative that joint education be expanded to provide requisite skills to all personnel operating in this complex environment.

Not a Deviation

General Henry Shelton, USA, said, "Education and leader development are vital ... to fulfill both short-term needs and long-term requirements. Education must be thought of not as a deviation from a soldier's duty, but a central and continuing focus." (1) Joint professional military education (JPME) must ensure that officers supporting combatant commanders can address the full range of tasks. "All service and joint educational systems also serve another important role by helping to meet current readiness requirements." This educational preparation contributes substantively to the readiness of the CINC for daily mission execution.

While readiness is crucial in itself, education also enables the military to manage its transformation, which is more than making incremental improvements to current capabilities. Rather, added Shelton, "transformation is first and foremost an intellectual exercise, requiring the brightest minds actively engaged in taking our Armed Forces to new and higher levels of effectiveness. Therefore, the road to transformation begins with a strong program of education and leader development."

The environment for joint education already contained in law and regulation and programs in place can address the above concerns. Solid curriculum and assessment/evaluation in use in JPME are a starting point. Proposed here is confirmation of the efforts to date and a greater role for the current framework in expanding the system. This can assist the joint force commander with the variety of missions he faces.

First, it is necessary to examine those forces that have defined JPME needs. Congress gave specific requirements for joint education with the Goldwater-Nichols DOD Reorganization Act of 1986. How they should be implemented was detailed for the Chairman in the House Report of the Panel on Military Education of the 100th Congress, known as the Skelton Panel Report. The focus of all joint curricula is to be on combatant command and three-star joint task force (JTF) contingency levels. The report proposed that the intermediate service colleges be identified as Phase I of JPME and teach joint education from a service perspective. Phase II would build on Phase I as presented by the service schools and concentrate on the integrated deployment and employment of multi-service forces. The Phase II course was directed to concentrate on joint doctrine, use case studies in developed and undeveloped contingency theaters, and encourage joint perspectives while increasing understanding of service cultures. The proposal to establish specific phases was implemented in the FY90 National Defense Authorization Act.

Most of the structure introduced in the Goldwater-Nichols Act and subsequent legislation has remained in law. In addition to defining what are considered joint matters in education, Title X of the U.S. Code also highlights rigorous standards, which is as much a readiness as an educational issue. Just as rigorous training ensures that personnel are prepared for their duties, rigorous educational standards ensure that their leaders are too.

Guided by the needs of the combatant commanders and congressional mandates, the joint education vision was refined through the officer professional military education policy (OPMEP). Issued as an instruction by the Chairman (CJCSI 1800.01A), the policy provides the primary guidance for all joint instruction from pre-commissioning to the Capstone Course. It mandates the fundamental learning objectives for institutions, focusing their joint educational efforts. However, other sources of input need attention as well. In conjunction with OPMEP, the Chairman routinely publishes special areas of emphasis (SAEs). Topics such as peace operations, asymmetric warfare, and consequence management, selected well before September 11, highlight the importance of this tool in maintaining relevance. These sources are complemented by congressional guidance, which not only specified topics, but also addressed the learning environment and the best teaching techniques. The Skelton Panel, for example, prescribed small seminars, focusing on active versus passive learning.

Thus ample guidance exists regarding what should be included in joint education on various levels. However, the central issue addressed by Shelton and others is the need for a greater availability of joint education as well as more levels of detail. Current initiatives might address these difficulties. The question is whether we will maximize time, money, and personnel to provide the most appropriate education to each servicemember at the right time.