What are the benefits and drawbacks of hosting international military training on US soil?
Executive summary
Hosting international military training on U.S. soil can strengthen alliances, interoperability, and U.S. influence by bringing foreign officers into American professional military education and facilities; programs like IMET explicitly aim to build rapport and shared doctrine [1]. Critics and scholars warn of limits and risks: training can fail to change structural behaviors, may politicize U.S. assistance, and in some cases correlates with unintended outcomes such as coup risk or limited long-term norm adoption [2] [3] [4].
1. Strategic gains: “Bring partners into our way of operating”
Bringing foreign militaries onto U.S. bases and schools lets the United States teach tactics, logistics, and professional norms in controlled environments—advantages the Defense Security Cooperation Agency lists as building rapport, enhancing interoperability for joint operations, and giving partners access to DoD education at reduced marginal cost [1]. Academic work finds relationship-building and deterrence among the main logics behind U.S. foreign training: training on U.S. soil is a tangible tool of defense diplomacy that supports alliance networks [5].
2. Soft power and norms: “Exporting professionalization and democratic values”
Programs like IMET are designed not just to teach skills but to expose students to U.S. civil‑military norms and democratic practices; that intentional norms curriculum is a stated aim of the program [1]. Proponents argue such exposure can foster long-term alignment with U.S. interests and professionalization of partner forces [5].
3. Measurable limits: “Training doesn’t fix structural problems”
Longstanding studies caution that training alone often cannot alter deeper political, institutional, or structural drivers of behavior; RAND’s historical analyses of El Salvador and Honduras find that root causes shaped outcomes more than U.S. training did [2]. Brookings and other scholars note programs focused narrowly on skills risk missing governance, accountability, and alignment problems that blunt effectiveness [6].
4. Unintended consequences: “Influence, but sometimes in unexpected directions”
Researchers tracing the rise of U.S. foreign military training warn the policy is controversial: some work reanalyzing IMET suggests links between training and increased coup risk in certain contexts, and incidents—such as the deaths of U.S. trainers in Niger—underscore real security dangers and political blowback [3]. Lawfare reporting also finds that norms training effects can fade fast and sometimes create conflicting incentives on issues like human rights and civilian control [4].
5. Security and logistics costs: “We host them — who pays and who protects?”
Hosting foreign forces requires infrastructure, security, and funding. Recent congressional allocations emphasize modernization of training ranges and infrastructure as critical to warfighter readiness—$7 billion for construction and modernization was highlighted in legislation funding defense infrastructure [7]. That kind of investment shows hosting is resource‑intensive and competes with domestic priorities.
6. Political and accountability risks: “Tool of influence or political lever?”
Scholars emphasize multiple, sometimes competing logics for U.S. training—relationship-building, deterrence, capacity‑building, and democracy promotion—and warn this mixture complicates oversight and accountability [5]. The politicization of assistance in recent years (for instance, episodes involving Ukraine) illustrates how training programs can become entangled with shifting policy aims and partisan politics [3].
7. Educational tradeoffs and domestic benefits: “US personnel also learn from exposure”
Analysis of international military education notes reciprocal benefits: U.S. students gain perspective on partner militaries and civil‑military relations when international officers are resident in U.S. programs, improving cross-cultural competence that matters in coalition operations [8]. Cutting throughput to save money can degrade that educational value [8].
8. Balancing approach: “Design, vet, and evaluate rigorously”
The literature’s recurring prescription is design improvements: align training with clear strategic goals, include governance and human‑rights components where relevant, vet participants, and evaluate long‑term effects rather than assume transfer of norms [6] [4] [3]. The State Department’s public reporting and datasets provide tools for accountability but don’t eliminate the need for careful policy choices [9] [3].
Limitations and unanswered questions: available sources outline benefits, constraints, and scholarly debate about training effectiveness and risks, but they do not provide a definitive cost–benefit calculus for specific proposals to host particular countries’ forces on U.S. soil; available sources do not mention precise current numbers of foreign students on U.S. bases in 2025 beyond historical data [1] [3].