Customs and Combat: How Cultural Empathy Impacts Multinational Military Partnerships Published Sept. 9, 2024 By Corey Shiver Wild Blue Yonder--Maxwell AFB -- Strength in Numbers Fighting within coalitions is the future of warfare. Military history is rife with peoples and nations joining together in common cause, but the importance of alliances and coalitions has surged due to 21st century globalization. Advancement in communications and transportation technologies, expanded trade between states, and other economic factors have deeply integrated our world. It is becoming increasingly difficult for countries to act independently, especially to wage war. As a result, the role of military alliances and coalitions between states have become more common to promote deterrence and stability. It is important to understand the definitions, differences and similarities between coalitions and alliances. Though often used synonymously, these terms reflect distinct concepts. Coalitions are typically temporary, established to achieve specific objectives and dissolving upon their completion. In contrast, alliances represent long-term commitments among states, forged to ensure mutual defense and sustained cooperation. Simply put, coalitions are tactical constructs aimed at immediate goals, whereas alliances are strategic frameworks designed for enduring collaboration. For clarity, this paper will generally refer to coalitions and alliances collectively, except where their distinctions are significant. Alliances play a pivotal role in fortifying the defense of U.S. spheres of interest while avoiding extensive deployments of military personnel. However, U.S. leadership must exercise judiciousness in committing military forces and be mindful of the historical pitfalls exemplified by the overextension of alliances like those in the tense years before WWI. While cultivating numerous allies is advantageous, caution must prevail to avoid entanglements in conflicts where America lacks the capacity or willingness to engage. As General Fox Conner, the mentor of Generals Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton, sagely advised, “Never fight unless you have to. Never fight alone. Never fight for long.”[1] By following General Conner’s mentorship, our military and political leaders will better prevent future military failures. Understanding how to operate within coalitions and alliances is as necessary as the existence of the organizations themselves. If the United States military takes on an operation that involves partners or allies, military and political leaders of the United States will have to maneuver effectively across cultural and political differences to navigate the partnership properly. To understand how to overcome these differences, we must observe and identify areas of strength and weakness using our military history to our advantage. In other words, America’s leaders must always remain students of history throughout their careers to have a full set of tools to navigate contemporary issues.[2] This paper will examine key cultural factors that can affect the outcome of a multinational operation. It will also include both successful and unsuccessful historical case studies of past military operations to observe details that impacted the mission either positively or negatively. Interpreting Culture Effective collaboration with international partners necessitates a profound understanding of their cultural dynamics.[3] Culture is a critical determinant that influences how partners behave during military operations. Allied forces, particularly those from different cultural backgrounds, are unlikely to conform to American norms. Despite efforts to integrate foreign personnel into U.S. military culture, these allies will often retain their unique cultural identities. Therefore, it is imperative for American forces to first comprehend the cultural perspectives of their partners. Achieving this level of cultural understanding requires an in-depth examination of three key pillars: religion, history, and language.[4] These elements constitute the core of cultural identity and offer a foundational framework for navigating the complexities of multinational partnerships. Given the vast diversity of cultures with which the U.S. military may engage, focusing on these essential aspects provides a practical starting point for building effective intercultural relationships. The U.S. military currently employs the ASCOPE/PMESII framework to assess the internal dynamics of foreign partners or adversaries. While this framework is beneficial for subject matter experts and those engaged in security cooperation, it can be less accessible to individuals without specialized education or experience. Additionally, this framework does not primarily focus on the cultural observation necessary for fostering meaningful relationships. Therefore, this paper advocates for an alternative approach, one that emphasizes the three aforementioned facets of culture—religion, history, and language—as a more universally applicable strategy across all levels of U.S. military operations. By adopting this approach, the U.S. can strengthen trust and cultivate lasting partnerships with its allies, thereby enhancing operational effectiveness. Religion Religion is a cornerstone of culture that significantly shapes an individual's worldview and, by extension, influences their approach to international partnerships. When collaborating with European allies, religion may play a less prominent role, as many European nations share familiar religious traditions with the United States.[5] However, when working with partners from regions where religion is more deeply intertwined with societal norms—such as the Middle East or the Indo-Pacific—religion becomes a vital factor in both communication and daily military operations.[6] Japan's response to the catastrophic 2011 tsunami provides an instructive example of how religion influences a population's approach to crises. Although Japan is often perceived as a secular society, religious beliefs can be fluid and resurface during times of distress. As noted by John Nelson, an expert on Asian religions at the University of San Francisco, "People turn to the gods in times of trouble."[7] Japan’s two dominant religions, Shintoism and Buddhism, coexist harmoniously yet operate within distinct spheres of life. Buddhism, for instance, is closely associated with death rituals, while Shintoism governs matters of life and renewal.[8] In terms of grieving individual loss, they play into Japanese life in different stages. To simplify, Buddhism deals with death, while Shinto deals with life.[9] Ian Reader, professor of Japanese studies at Britain's University of Manchester, explains that many Japanese turn to Buddhist rituals to honor their loved ones who have passed.[10] To do so, priests will read scripture and chant sutras before the body is cremated. Following these rituals is crucial for Buddhists, as spirits of ancestors not properly memorialized can cause problems for their family. As explicated by Brian Bocking, an expert of Asian religions at Ireland's University College Cork, Buddhists believe that unmemorialized spirits will be discontent with their living family members, as they will be unhappy with how they are being taken care of following their death.[11] Managing rituals and traditions during a mass casualty event such as this will be difficult but is still possible through large memorials for the dead. Once the initial grieving process is complete, the Japanese shift towards Shinto practices to seek harmony with deities and begin the process of rebuilding.[12] Shinto rituals and prayers are particularly important at the start of new endeavors, such as the reconstruction efforts that follow disasters.[13] Understanding a nation's religious framework can provide the United States with critical insights into how that nation may respond to challenges. This understanding is especially pertinent in the case of Japan, a key U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific. By aligning U.S. relief efforts with Japan's cultural and religious practices, American forces can expedite recovery processes and contribute to regional stability. Such an approach fosters cultural empathy, which strengthens bilateral relationships and enhances the likelihood of successful long-term cooperation. History When understanding the religion of a partner, it becomes apparent that we should also make an effort to understand their history.[14] As Americans, we have a different grasp of history in comparison to much of the world, as our country only has existed for 350 years.[15] However, in most other regions, history spans across a considerably longer period of time, which inevitably ties into what occurs in the present day.[16] America was born in war, and has a rich military history. However, the regions in which our military operates are also rich with military history, much of which stemmed from conflict between ethnic and religious groups. So, in understanding the history of the Indo-Pacific and other regions of importance to American interests, Americans can get a glimpse as to why nations fight for or against either each other. For example, the Middle East has a long history marked by religious conflicts between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. This historical backdrop complicates U.S. efforts to build partnerships in the region. Thus, when operating alongside Muslim-majority nations, U.S. forces must be cognizant of the region’s historical sensitivities. Missteps in this area—such as invoking terms like "crusade," which carries deep historical and religious connotations—can inadvertently exacerbate tensions or undermine coalition efforts. Demonstrating an awareness of these historical intricacies fosters mutual respect and paves the way for more effective collaboration. The cultural context also varies significantly between regions. For instance, many Middle Eastern countries operate within what sociologists classify as high-context cultures, where communication relies heavily on non-verbal cues, historical references, and deep-seated traditions. This contrasts with the U.S., which is considered a low-context culture, where communication tends to be more direct and less reliant on historical context. U.S. servicemembers must adapt their approach accordingly, incorporating an understanding of their partners’ historical narratives to prevent miscommunication and build stronger alliances. In the Indo-Pacific, similar principles apply. The history of colonialism, regional conflicts, and traditional alliances continues to influence the political and military landscape. For example, Southeast Asian nations may still be shaped by their colonial pasts and lingering sentiments toward former colonial powers. Understanding these historical undercurrents enables U.S. forces to engage more effectively with regional partners, avoiding missteps that could inadvertently trigger historical grievances. By integrating historical awareness into military strategy and diplomacy, U.S. forces can navigate the complexities of multinational partnerships with greater sensitivity and effectiveness. History is not merely a backdrop to current events; it is an active force that informs how nations perceive their allies and adversaries, shaping the geopolitical landscape in profound ways. Language The last aspect that should be recognized when adopting a new mentality of attempting to understand a partner through their culture is language.[17] In addition to religion, language is a factor that plays into the identity of an individual.[18] Unfortunately, Americans, in general, tend to lag behind in language acquisition compared to their international counterparts. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only about 20% of Americans are proficient in more than one language, a stark contrast to Europe, where over half the population is multilingual.[19] This linguistic gap has historically been rationalized by the United States' status as a global superpower, with an expectation that others will adapt to speaking English. However, in the context of the modern Great Power Competition, this approach may increasingly be seen as a liability rather than an asset. To strengthen alliances and build effective multinational partnerships, the U.S. must place greater emphasis on language education, not only among its citizens but particularly within its military. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has made significant strides in this area, offering exceptional language training programs. However, a broader initiative is needed to extend these resources to a wider range of servicemembers, promoting language proficiency as a critical skill for success in multinational operations. Historical examples demonstrate the value of such initiatives. Prior to the Vietnam War, the U.S. Marine Corps required its officers to learn French or Vietnamese, recognizing that linguistic skills would be crucial in a region with deep colonial ties to France.[20] This foresight proved invaluable, as early Marine Corps advisors deployed to Vietnam were able to rely on their language abilities to navigate complex relationships and successfully carry out their missions. Building on these past successes, a renewed emphasis on language education within the U.S. military would strengthen its ability to operate in diverse cultural environments, enhancing both tactical and strategic outcomes. Language proficiency opens doors to more effective communication, fosters trust, and ultimately, strengthens the bonds of partnership that are essential in today's interconnected world. Conclusion Effective collaboration with international allies necessitates a paradigm shift in the way the U.S. military approaches multinational operations. To enhance U.S. national security and achieve foreign policy objectives, the military must embrace a more nuanced understanding of culture, language, and interpersonal communication. These competencies are as essential as tactical and technical expertise in fostering successful multinational partnerships. Drawing from the lessons of history, we gain valuable insights into navigating complex multinational environments. Although the tools of warfare continue to evolve, the enduring wisdom derived from past conflicts remains relevant, offering guidance on how to approach contemporary challenges. Crucially, the success of any coalition, alliance, or advisory mission depends on a shared sense of purpose and mutual trust. Fostering unity and building confidence among partners is paramount to achieving collective goals. As we confront the uncertainties of future conflicts, immersing ourselves in the lessons of history will equip us to navigate the challenges that lie ahead with greater wisdom and foresight. By investing in cultural understanding, language proficiency, and adept communication, the U.S. military can enhance its ability to operate effectively in multinational contexts. In doing so, it will strengthen its alliances, bolster its strategic position, and ensure that it is better prepared to face the dynamic security challenges of the 21st century. Corey Shiver is a recent graduate of the University of South Florida with an undergraduate degree in Political Science. While attending USF, Corey was a Co-founder and President of the USF Chapter of the John Quincy Adams Society, a student-led organization focusing on foreign policy. After his graduation, Corey was selected for the Palace Acquire (PAQ) Internship Program for International Affairs with the U.S. Air Force, where he will be trained to become a Foreign Affairs Specialist at Wright-Patterson AFB. He just began his master’s degree in Strategy and Statecraft at the Institute of World Politics in Washington D.C. [1] David T. Zabecki, “3 Warfighting Lessons from Patton’s Mentor Fox Conner,” Historynet, April 5, 2022. [2] USMC Ret. Brig. Gen. Thomas V. Draude, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022. [3] Ibid. [4] Dr. Mohsen Milani, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022. [5] Dr. Mohsen Milani, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022. [6] Ibid. [7] Barbara Bradley Hagerty, "After Tsunami, Japanese Turn to Ancient Rituals" NPR, March 17, 2011. [8] Ibid. [9] Ibid. [10] Ibid. [11] Ibid. [12] Ibid. [13] Ibid. [14] Dr. Mohsen Milani, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022. [15] Ibid. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] Ibid. [19] Jay Matthews, "Half of the World is Bilingual. What’s Our Problem?" Washington Post, April 25, 2019. [20] USMC Ret. Brig. Gen. Thomas V. Draude, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022. Strength in Numbers Fighting within coalitions is the future of warfare. Military history is rife with peoples and nations joining together in common cause, but the importance of alliances and coalitions has surged due to 21st century globalization. Advancement in communications and transportation technologies, expanded trade between states, and other economic factors have deeply integrated our world. It is becoming increasingly difficult for countries to act independently, especially to wage war. As a result, the role of military alliances and coalitions between states have become more common to promote deterrence and stability. It is important to understand the definitions, differences and similarities between coalitions and alliances. Though often used synonymously, these terms reflect distinct concepts. Coalitions are typically temporary, established to achieve specific objectives and dissolving upon their completion. In contrast, alliances represent long-term commitments among states, forged to ensure mutual defense and sustained cooperation. Simply put, coalitions are tactical constructs aimed at immediate goals, whereas alliances are strategic frameworks designed for enduring collaboration. For clarity, this paper will generally refer to coalitions and alliances collectively, except where their distinctions are significant. Alliances play a pivotal role in fortifying the defense of U.S. spheres of interest while avoiding extensive deployments of military personnel. However, U.S. leadership must exercise judiciousness in committing military forces and be mindful of the historical pitfalls exemplified by the overextension of alliances like those in the tense years before WWI. While cultivating numerous allies is advantageous, caution must prevail to avoid entanglements in conflicts where America lacks the capacity or willingness to engage. As General Fox Conner, the mentor of Generals Dwight Eisenhower and George Patton, sagely advised, “Never fight unless you have to. Never fight alone. Never fight for long.”[1] By following General Conner’s mentorship, our military and political leaders will better prevent future military failures. Understanding how to operate within coalitions and alliances is as necessary as the existence of the organizations themselves. If the United States military takes on an operation that involves partners or allies, military and political leaders of the United States will have to maneuver effectively across cultural and political differences to navigate the partnership properly. To understand how to overcome these differences, we must observe and identify areas of strength and weakness using our military history to our advantage. In other words, America’s leaders must always remain students of history throughout their careers to have a full set of tools to navigate contemporary issues.[2] This paper will examine key cultural factors that can affect the outcome of a multinational operation. It will also include both successful and unsuccessful historical case studies of past military operations to observe details that impacted the mission either positively or negatively. Interpreting Culture Effective collaboration with international partners necessitates a profound understanding of their cultural dynamics.[3] Culture is a critical determinant that influences how partners behave during military operations. Allied forces, particularly those from different cultural backgrounds, are unlikely to conform to American norms. Despite efforts to integrate foreign personnel into U.S. military culture, these allies will often retain their unique cultural identities. Therefore, it is imperative for American forces to first comprehend the cultural perspectives of their partners. Achieving this level of cultural understanding requires an in-depth examination of three key pillars: religion, history, and language.[4] These elements constitute the core of cultural identity and offer a foundational framework for navigating the complexities of multinational partnerships. Given the vast diversity of cultures with which the U.S. military may engage, focusing on these essential aspects provides a practical starting point for building effective intercultural relationships. The U.S. military currently employs the ASCOPE/PMESII framework to assess the internal dynamics of foreign partners or adversaries. While this framework is beneficial for subject matter experts and those engaged in security cooperation, it can be less accessible to individuals without specialized education or experience. Additionally, this framework does not primarily focus on the cultural observation necessary for fostering meaningful relationships. Therefore, this paper advocates for an alternative approach, one that emphasizes the three aforementioned facets of culture—religion, history, and language—as a more universally applicable strategy across all levels of U.S. military operations. By adopting this approach, the U.S. can strengthen trust and cultivate lasting partnerships with its allies, thereby enhancing operational effectiveness. Religion Religion is a cornerstone of culture that significantly shapes an individual's worldview and, by extension, influences their approach to international partnerships. When collaborating with European allies, religion may play a less prominent role, as many European nations share familiar religious traditions with the United States.[5] However, when working with partners from regions where religion is more deeply intertwined with societal norms—such as the Middle East or the Indo-Pacific—religion becomes a vital factor in both communication and daily military operations.[6] Japan's response to the catastrophic 2011 tsunami provides an instructive example of how religion influences a population's approach to crises. Although Japan is often perceived as a secular society, religious beliefs can be fluid and resurface during times of distress. As noted by John Nelson, an expert on Asian religions at the University of San Francisco, "People turn to the gods in times of trouble."[7] Japan’s two dominant religions, Shintoism and Buddhism, coexist harmoniously yet operate within distinct spheres of life. Buddhism, for instance, is closely associated with death rituals, while Shintoism governs matters of life and renewal.[8] In terms of grieving individual loss, they play into Japanese life in different stages. To simplify, Buddhism deals with death, while Shinto deals with life.[9] Ian Reader, professor of Japanese studies at Britain's University of Manchester, explains that many Japanese turn to Buddhist rituals to honor their loved ones who have passed.[10] To do so, priests will read scripture and chant sutras before the body is cremated. Following these rituals is crucial for Buddhists, as spirits of ancestors not properly memorialized can cause problems for their family. As explicated by Brian Bocking, an expert of Asian religions at Ireland's University College Cork, Buddhists believe that unmemorialized spirits will be discontent with their living family members, as they will be unhappy with how they are being taken care of following their death.[11] Managing rituals and traditions during a mass casualty event such as this will be difficult but is still possible through large memorials for the dead. Once the initial grieving process is complete, the Japanese shift towards Shinto practices to seek harmony with deities and begin the process of rebuilding.[12] Shinto rituals and prayers are particularly important at the start of new endeavors, such as the reconstruction efforts that follow disasters.[13] Understanding a nation's religious framework can provide the United States with critical insights into how that nation may respond to challenges. This understanding is especially pertinent in the case of Japan, a key U.S. ally in the Indo-Pacific. By aligning U.S. relief efforts with Japan's cultural and religious practices, American forces can expedite recovery processes and contribute to regional stability. Such an approach fosters cultural empathy, which strengthens bilateral relationships and enhances the likelihood of successful long-term cooperation. History When understanding the religion of a partner, it becomes apparent that we should also make an effort to understand their history.[14] As Americans, we have a different grasp of history in comparison to much of the world, as our country only has existed for 350 years.[15] However, in most other regions, history spans across a considerably longer period of time, which inevitably ties into what occurs in the present day.[16] America was born in war, and has a rich military history. However, the regions in which our military operates are also rich with military history, much of which stemmed from conflict between ethnic and religious groups. So, in understanding the history of the Indo-Pacific and other regions of importance to American interests, Americans can get a glimpse as to why nations fight for or against either each other. For example, the Middle East has a long history marked by religious conflicts between Christians, Jews, and Muslims. This historical backdrop complicates U.S. efforts to build partnerships in the region. Thus, when operating alongside Muslim-majority nations, U.S. forces must be cognizant of the region’s historical sensitivities. Missteps in this area—such as invoking terms like "crusade," which carries deep historical and religious connotations—can inadvertently exacerbate tensions or undermine coalition efforts. Demonstrating an awareness of these historical intricacies fosters mutual respect and paves the way for more effective collaboration. The cultural context also varies significantly between regions. For instance, many Middle Eastern countries operate within what sociologists classify as high-context cultures, where communication relies heavily on non-verbal cues, historical references, and deep-seated traditions. This contrasts with the U.S., which is considered a low-context culture, where communication tends to be more direct and less reliant on historical context. U.S. servicemembers must adapt their approach accordingly, incorporating an understanding of their partners’ historical narratives to prevent miscommunication and build stronger alliances. In the Indo-Pacific, similar principles apply. The history of colonialism, regional conflicts, and traditional alliances continues to influence the political and military landscape. For example, Southeast Asian nations may still be shaped by their colonial pasts and lingering sentiments toward former colonial powers. Understanding these historical undercurrents enables U.S. forces to engage more effectively with regional partners, avoiding missteps that could inadvertently trigger historical grievances. By integrating historical awareness into military strategy and diplomacy, U.S. forces can navigate the complexities of multinational partnerships with greater sensitivity and effectiveness. History is not merely a backdrop to current events; it is an active force that informs how nations perceive their allies and adversaries, shaping the geopolitical landscape in profound ways. Language The last aspect that should be recognized when adopting a new mentality of attempting to understand a partner through their culture is language.[17] In addition to religion, language is a factor that plays into the identity of an individual.[18] Unfortunately, Americans, in general, tend to lag behind in language acquisition compared to their international counterparts. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only about 20% of Americans are proficient in more than one language, a stark contrast to Europe, where over half the population is multilingual.[19] This linguistic gap has historically been rationalized by the United States' status as a global superpower, with an expectation that others will adapt to speaking English. However, in the context of the modern Great Power Competition, this approach may increasingly be seen as a liability rather than an asset. To strengthen alliances and build effective multinational partnerships, the U.S. must place greater emphasis on language education, not only among its citizens but particularly within its military. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has made significant strides in this area, offering exceptional language training programs. However, a broader initiative is needed to extend these resources to a wider range of servicemembers, promoting language proficiency as a critical skill for success in multinational operations. Historical examples demonstrate the value of such initiatives. Prior to the Vietnam War, the U.S. Marine Corps required its officers to learn French or Vietnamese, recognizing that linguistic skills would be crucial in a region with deep colonial ties to France.[20] This foresight proved invaluable, as early Marine Corps advisors deployed to Vietnam were able to rely on their language abilities to navigate complex relationships and successfully carry out their missions. Building on these past successes, a renewed emphasis on language education within the U.S. military would strengthen its ability to operate in diverse cultural environments, enhancing both tactical and strategic outcomes. Language proficiency opens doors to more effective communication, fosters trust, and ultimately, strengthens the bonds of partnership that are essential in today's interconnected world. Conclusion Effective collaboration with international allies necessitates a paradigm shift in the way the U.S. military approaches multinational operations. To enhance U.S. national security and achieve foreign policy objectives, the military must embrace a more nuanced understanding of culture, language, and interpersonal communication. These competencies are as essential as tactical and technical expertise in fostering successful multinational partnerships. Drawing from the lessons of history, we gain valuable insights into navigating complex multinational environments. Although the tools of warfare continue to evolve, the enduring wisdom derived from past conflicts remains relevant, offering guidance on how to approach contemporary challenges. Crucially, the success of any coalition, alliance, or advisory mission depends on a shared sense of purpose and mutual trust. Fostering unity and building confidence among partners is paramount to achieving collective goals. As we confront the uncertainties of future conflicts, immersing ourselves in the lessons of history will equip us to navigate the challenges that lie ahead with greater wisdom and foresight. By investing in cultural understanding, language proficiency, and adept communication, the U.S. military can enhance its ability to operate effectively in multinational contexts. In doing so, it will strengthen its alliances, bolster its strategic position, and ensure that it is better prepared to face the dynamic security challenges of the 21st century. Corey Shiver Corey Shiver is a recent graduate of the University of South Florida with an undergraduate degree in Political Science. While attending USF, Corey was a Co-founder and President of the USF Chapter of the John Quincy Adams Society, a student-led organization focusing on foreign policy. After his graduation, Corey was selected for the Palace Acquire (PAQ) Internship Program for International Affairs with the U.S. Air Force, where he will be trained to become a Foreign Affairs Specialist at Wright-Patterson AFB. [1] David T. Zabecki, “3 Warfighting Lessons from Patton’s Mentor Fox Conner,” Historynet, 5 April 2022, https://www.historynet.com/. [2] USMC Ret. Brig. Gen. Thomas V. Draude, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022. [3] Ibid. [4] Dr. Mohsen Milani, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022. [5] Dr. Milani, Mohsen, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022. [6] Ibid. [7] Hagerty, B.B. After Tsunami, Japanese Turn to Ancient Rituals. (NPR, 2011). [8] Ibid. [9] Ibid. [10] Hagerty, B.B. After Tsunami, Japanese Turn to Ancient Rituals. (NPR, 2011). [11] Ibid. [12] Ibid. [13] Ibid. [14] Dr. Milani, Mohsen, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022. [15] Dr. Milani, Mohsen, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] Ibid. [19] Matthews, Jay, Half of the world is bilingual. What’s our problem? (Washington Post, 2019). [20] USMC Ret. Brig. Gen. Thomas V. Draude, interview by author, University of South Florida, 2022.