A military occupation in the guise of education. How would the impoverished country distinguish between feeling invaded or educated? Children being taught by the barrell of a gun? Eric Claus' article makes me feel very uneasy. Surely there are more positive ways to assist than through military rule?

One of the first things many governments do when they get into power is to boost the military, and all the money goes in that direction. Eventually it leads to an arms race. Why encourage it.

Maybe a civil corp. is necessary in many countries, for providing education and establishing civil infrastructure, but I wouldn’t like to see any weaponry involved.

An army of educators seems to have had little effect on certain parts of the world.
After 150 - 200 years of colonialisation and the establishment social institutions (including schools and colleges and constitutions), followed by 50 years of self government (and the erradication of schools and colleges and constitutions), most of Africa's "educated elite" who obtained power are now denying to their fellow Africans the primary education we in the first world take for granted.
At some point in time someone will realise you can either "colonise" for the common good or leave places to "develop" (HA) in their own way.
I guess colonialisation might have me merits - for instance I sometimes wonder just how much better off PNG might be if, as well as supplying development aid we "manned" the PNG social institutions - like parliament.

Ringtail, Timkins - Where in the world did you get the idea that I wanted guns involved? Why do you call sending teachers to a country - Military rule? There would be no reason to have any guns. I imagine there would be countries that said "No, we don't trust you western industrialised colonialists." In those cases the Education Army would just stay away. As with any teaching, the students have to want to learn or everybodies time is wasted.

The idea is to offer aid that really helps people in poor countries. All I see is money being thrown at them and that has not worked very well. Provide low interest rate loans and then forgive those loans. How many times should we do that, before trying something new. Is there any way we can throw some ideas, hope and (dare I say it) Love as well as money?

Thanks very much for your comments. I can see that just the word 'army' has many negative connotations. Please let me know any of your other ideas.

Hi Eric,

My thoughts were that you wanted to convert sections of the armed forces into teachers (eg “Soldiers would not have to be turned into teachers, but many soldiers are very well suited to teaching, as they are already experienced trainers. If the core of the new Education Army was from the existing armed forces, the organisation would be set, and there would be a body of people who knew how to train people, who understood bureaucracies and who were used to living overseas in uncomfortable places.”)

There are many causes of poverty, but a common reason would be internal government corruption, and too much of the country's national wealth being spent on arms. Events occurring in several African countries would attest to this. Also Iraq where I understand the population is generally well educated, but of course many of the people have been plunged into great poverty and suffering because of reasons beyond their immediate control.

While education is important, I think the country would have to be politically stable, with only a nominal amount of money being spent on armed forces for education programs to have any great positive affect. How to produce political stability and reduce the world wide arm's race is of course a very complex problem.

Eric .. all well meaning liberal democratic thoughtfullness will always come up against entrenched tribal interests. No matter how good the intention, if it is perceived (and it will) as favoring one group,or in any way constituting a threat to exisiting status, prestige and power, it will be resisted in the strongest possible way.
When we westerners think of education, we think of it in terms of our broad multicultural view but such a view is not compatable with mixed race 3rd world countries generally.

I speak as one who has lived/worked/served in such a country and so I've seen it all.

BOAZ David - Tell us more. Which country and what were the specific things that happened?

I think everybody who comments is right in saying that it will not be easy. I've had good and bad experiences and reports. Most westerners who volunteer in Africa talk about the frustrations. Some talk about not being appreciated for what they try to do. In Kenya over one hundred local male teachers were sacked for sexually abusing their female students and there were hints in the reports, that there were many more still doing it and that much of the population thought that was the right of the teachers.

Other programs have been unmitigated successes, both small and global. There are many examples of volunteers teaching villages how to protect their water supplies or use irrigation, that have saved many lives. In much of the developing world when the locals became well enough educated they wanted freedom from their colonial rulers. That is a very positive aspect of education. In recent times education levels in some parts of some developing nations have increased so dramatically, that these areas are now part of the global economy.

My experience with the military is that they are tough, efficient and serious about achieving their goals. I think it is the people, not the fact that they carry guns. I think those are the traits that would help get organised education into many places that currently don't have the resources and that have other obstacles to overcome.

Wonderful article Eric.

It has a great deal of merit. As you say, the concept has had successes. So why one earth can’t it be expanded?

Well, maybe I should say that on the surface it has a great deal of merit, but once you start delving into it you see all sorts of issues confounding this simple concept. The five responses you received touched on a few of them. There are no doubt many more.

It is interesting that Boaz, a most prolific OLO contributor, didn’t get back to you. Pity about that, because he did make a couple of very good points – entrenched interests, which I take to mean religious/cultural practices and beliefs, and the inevitable perception of favour for one group in the eyes of another, where two or more groups exist together or as neighbours or even across borders, be they racial, ethnic or cultural entities.

Timkins also makes a good contribution: There are many causes of poverty, such as corrupt governments, where foreign education teams would not be allowed to go, or it would not be advisable if they were allowed.

But then you acknowledged that it would not be easy.

I still think that there are many situations where it has a lot of potential.

So back to the question, why can’t it be expanded? Why hasn’t the UN given it due consideration? Or have they, and found too many problems with it? I would love to have your thoughts.