Warrior Ethos

[Bill Moore]

The debate about language training has been ongoing in SF for years. How much time to dedicate to it, what combat training do you drop so you can conduct language training, what languages do we train on, etc.

It should be no surprise that there are several schools of thought in SF on this important topic, but of course the guy who has the most stars on his chest tends to carry the day on what school of thought is implemented.

A couple of thoughts on the topic that may be worth considering:

1. During the Cold War it wasn't unusual to have SF teams (ODAs) where everyone on the team spoke the same language, whether Polish, Russian, Chinese, etc., so just in case the ballon went up and we went to war they could deploy to that locale which they studied and conduct their mission (assuming they survived infiltration). IMO no argument, language was a critical capability for this mission set. You're not going to hire interpreters in a denied area.

2. Over the past 20 our so years (and there are still exceptions) teams general have Soldiers who speak different foreign languages. Not only does it make it tougher to manage training, but also is this really a warfighting or IW capability? If Joe speaks Urdu, and Bill speaks Korean, and John speaks Arabic, does Joe become an interpreter for the team when their in Afghanistan, or does he still focus on his main job (medic, engineer, team leader, weapons, etc.)? Or is just a guy on the team who has a relevant language for "this" mission.

3. For conventional forces I imagine the problems will be even more challenging, and as Ken states we rarely know where we're going, and in many countries they speak more than one language. I believe has at least 12 major languages for example. Even in long drawn out wars like OIF and Vietnam, which are somewhat predictable, we don't always get it right. There was at least one unit that recently was scheduled to go to OIF, and was diverted at the 11th hour to go to OEF-A. The Cdr being proactive and someone who gets the COIN fight, sent several of his Soldiers to Arabic language training, now they're going to Afghanistan. I'm not arguing that was a waste, but dedicating time and resources to language training (except for head start type train ups) involves some degree of risk. You're giving up other training venues in exchange for language training, so it is important to weigh that risk and not blindly go down the road that everyone needs to be a linguist. Not to mention it is a perishable skill, so it is the gift that keeps on giving.

4. For SF and for officers in general, I think it is valuable to learn a language in the training pipeline because it does make you more aware of other cultures, so there are benefits that are not necessarily tangible. If you simply realize that words represent concepts and shape the way you think, and that not everyone uses the English language, then you're one step ahead, even if you're a Korean speaker working in Afghanistan.

No recommendations at this time, just a caution to avoid thinking that language training for the GPF will solve the majority of our FID and COIN deficiencies. It is all about finding the right balance, which means conducting realistic risk assessments.

[Ken White]

SF need language capability and cultural knowledge -- and, as you say, there are several approaches on how, precisely, to do that. As you also point out, the vagaries of a change in command can undo a great deal of precision. Plans and priorities change, as do people...

The SF Troop is the FID/ SFA expert and hopefully will get in there, do his thing and preclude the need for the GPF to have to try -- poorly -- to do SF work. If the GPF have to go in and augment the SF effort or expand it considerably, everyone should understand that they will always only do a marginal job. That will generally be adequate but only rarely will they really do it well.

That's okay, it isn't their job. There's a very valid reason for the difference in structure, rank and specialties between an SF ODA and a Rifle Company and that means neither can really do the work of the other, their expertise and construction are designed for different things -- all of us should remember that, remember to use the right tool for the job and also remember "best is the enemy of good enough."