The growing importance of languages in the fight against terror - foreign language proficiency important - Brief Article

Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin, July-Sept, 2002 by Ray Lane Aldrich

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Departments of the Army or Defense, or the U.S. Government.

The War on Terrorism involves a number of aspects of foreign language proficiency as a critical factor in combating the terrorist threat. The higher the proficiency of the Army's linguists, the greater potential quality of the information they will provide.

Proficiency Level 3/3 Is Necessary

Our military linguists need to be at the 3/3 proficiency level to combat terrorism. However, the Army standard for foreign language proficiency is level 2 in both reading and listening, expressed as 2/2 or L2/R2. That level of proficiency is also the goal of the Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (DLIFLC) Basic Course. As the Interagency Language Roundtable (ILR) defines it, a "2" (in plain language) is "limited working proficiency." It roughly equals the ability to handle both "...routine social demands and limited job requirements...." This equates to an apprentice proficiency level; military linguists at this proficiency level can generally handle repetitive, proforma, simple, uncomplicated language. This is the proficiency level at which training exercises and organized military operations take place.

The language used by terrorists is more complex than the Army standard. One can safely assume that terrorist communication, whether electronic or face-to-face, will be in the realm of colloquial, complicated, jargon-rich chatter between people who share a deep philosophical commitment and a common cultural background. The opportunities for misunderstanding by a 2/2 linguist are significant.

Linguist Training Priorities

What does the Army need to do? We should train linguists in accordance with the following priorities:

* Languages listed in Figure 1 are suggested as appropriate for initial Army concentration. With the spread of the War on Terrorism to countries beyond Afghanistan, the list of languages must also expand.

* The Army should first begin by training current speakers of the languages to higher proficiency levels: at least 3/3. While not simple to do, it will not take as long as training non-linguists to a "limited working proficiency," and has a good chance of being successful.

* The Army should, at the same time, expand the dialect understanding of current linguists in new target languages. The goal of this training should also be 3/3. This, too, will take a shorter time than training non-linguists and will provide the ability to understand communication common to the less-well educated and to those who do not want to be understood.

* The Army should begin teaching new target languages in which we have no trained professional linguists. The goal of this training should be 2/2. After these linguists gain experience they should receive training to higher levels. These soldiers would form a cadre upon which we could build additional structure only when we need it (see Figure 2).

* The Army should actively seek current soldiers and incoming recruits with proficiency in and knowledge of any foreign language. We must record these skills in current databases for both the Active and Reserve Components (AC and RC, respectively).

* The Army should selectively use nonprofessional linguists who are adequately skilled in new target languages.

* Only when the Army has accessed all Components and depleted their inventories of linguists should it hire contract linguists to meet its requirements.

* The Army should direct and mandate technological solutions. These systems may include remoted linguist augmentation, one-way translators, or other systems not as yet practical. Control of this technology should remain with the Army and not with a contractor who has no motivation to employ it.

Figure 1

Initial Language Concentration Language Identification Codes (LICs).

Dialects

* Arabic, Modern Standard, AD

* Arabic-Egyptian (AE)

* Arabic-Syrian (AP)

* Arabic-Libyan (AL)

* Arabic-Maghrebi (AM)

* Arabic-Gulf (DG)

* Persian-Iranian (Farsi) (PF)

* Pushtu (PU)

* Persian-Afghan (Dan) (PG)

* Azerbaijani (AX)

* Punjabi (PJ)

* Sindhi (SD)

* Siariki

* Urdu (UR)

Figure 2

Cadres For Languages Lacking Army Linguists.

* Kurdish (KU)

* Baluchi (BU)

* Turkoman (UB)

* Tadjik (TB)

* Brahui

* Hindko/Hazaragi

Lane Aldrich (Chief Warrant Officer Three, U.S. Army, Retired) has been an active military linguist since 1961. He has attended DLIFLC and received military language-school training in Russian and German to the 3/3 level Mr. Aldrich earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California. Readers may contact Mr. Aldrich via E-mail at ray.aldrich@hgda.army.mll.