Joe, more americans should have foreign language training, not just soldiers. I think we should get to the root of the problem.
Other countries learn english starting in the lowest grades-- we need to learn other languages starting early. It is much easier to learn a second language when young. We need to establish a culture of valuing languages other than our own.

I'm taking Arabic 101 from a private language school (my competence is about toddler level). One of the four students in the class is a soldier on leave. He's also the best student, but it's a shame that the military isn't providing the classes.

I hear you. But speaking as someone who has learned and lost 2 languages besides English, it doesn't do a damn bit of good if those languages aren't used regularly. Even if you live in Florida or Texas and learn Spanish, odds are you'll almost never use it as an adult unless you have people in your family who prefer Spanish.

Throw in the difficulty of predicting what languages the U.S. military will need in 10-15 years, and the fact that these issues need fast action not a "fix the underlying problem and improve in 15 years" solution, and your proposal may save some unknown level of educational benefit but it isn't really helpful in this case.

Which leaves us with the core problems:

• How to tap and sharpen language skills already possessed by incoming recruits and existing troops?

• How to help American soldiers quickly pick up some level of language proficiency, then continue to get guided help improving while in-country?

• How to tap America's immigrant populations for help with both language and culture training (this has already been done vis-a-vis Iraq, in some interesting ways), and for language-related auxiliary services?

The resources are out there, and there's no reason why we couldn't have had some patchwork solutions within 6 months of 9/11, the first After-Action Reviews on the subject within a year, a more comprehensive solution 6 months after that, and AARs on that iteration a year ago. By now, we should be able to point to a number of successful programs and have both a roadmap for full integration and a cadre of experienced officers who can help implement it based on field experience.

Now, it's possible that Shachtman is wildly wrong, and so is Fred Kaplan, and in fact we have all this. But it sure doesn't sound like it.

The resources are out there, and there's no reason why we couldn't have had some patchwork solutions within 6 months of 9/11, the first After-Action Reviews on the subject within a year, a more comprehensive solution 6 months after that, and AARs on that iteration a year ago. By now, we should be able to point to a number of successful programs and have both a roadmap for full integration and a cadre of experienced officers who can help implement it based on field experience.

Uh huh. After all, the military didn't have anything else pressing to do during the last few years.

Sorry, Joe - I see lots of attention being paid to this issue. The fact that it's not visible to the likes of Fred Kaplan and Noach Schachtman doesn't mean people aren't taking this seriously.

Could it be faster? Sure - if those who understand the problem of cultural and dialect fluency in, for example, the Arabic-speaking world weren't already working nights and weekends on operational issues.

Robin, this was part of those "pressing things to do." A big part. And it's not as if this kind of expertise didn't exist outside of the military... there's a whole industry devoted to this stuff.

Fred Kaplan's columns reflect a limited knowledge of his subject. This one is a good example. But he lays out the timeline in the article cited at DefenseTech.org, and frankly unless he has badly misrepresented that timeline and left out the major field trials, innovations, AARs et. al. it's very hard to argue with.

Well, i still think we need a cultural paradigm shift in our attitude towards language. Being as how we're globalists an' all. ;)

I think the general attitude toward foreign language training in American education is quite rational, needs no change, and will accept none from above anyway.

The reason other countries do better is because their people have to use those languages in day to day life. The "attitude" toward language will change in direct proportion to the usefulness of knowing a foreign language in daily life. Right now, that's very very low and it's likely to remain low unless you live in certain neighbourhoods, work as a chef (in which case, learn Spanish or else), etc.

Once that usefulness is established for a particular person, the challenge becomes getting that person up to speed as fast as possible. This will be true for businesspeople as well as military personnel.

Joe, it's certainly true that language fluency is valuable. But whether it's as pressing as training soldiers in constantly evolving urban / counterinsurgency tactics is questionable. Don't forget that we are rotating a whole lot of national guard and reservists through Iraq on relatively short tours. The experienced officers and NCOs are already stretched between fighting and training. Moreover the logistics planning that is required for supplying and supporting those troops is considerable. Just because we make this all look easy doesn't mean it's easy to do ....

Moreover it's not quite correct to say that there are lots of commercial firms that could do a language program for the military. I've had a little visibility into some of the discussions about this at West Point since a student team I mentored did a study of potential cultural immersion curriculum changes last year.

Two things from that: first, one of the things I hear from experts with in-country experience is that teaching standard Arabic, which is what nearly all the courses and sources do, can actually be counterproductive unless it is accompanied by a much deeper cultural training.

A surprisingly large number of people in different "Arabic" speaking countries actually speak dialects as far apart from each other as Spanish and Portugese - or even more different than that. It makes for a huge issue wrt getting any message out over mass media, btw ... So if you're going to train in Arabic for Iraq, you're looking at months of training for a single country, for troops that rotate out quickly.

Perhaps more important, what is needed goes way beyond language skills taught in a vacuum. Again, to take the example of Arabic for Iraq, most Iraqis will forgive the need for a translator but many (and especially those who are not well educated) will be very deeply offended by actions, body language etc. that do not match their norms and expectations -- the moreso when the person "speaks our language" and therefore is expected to act correctly as well.

This is NOT an easy issue to address in a DOD-wide program. Which is why there are a lot of small initiatives happening informally while the staffs consider what they are going to commit time and money to - and what will suffer as a result.

I should add that I have students who are majoring in combinations like Arabic + French studies ... language and culture and history. But there are changes that will probably happen in the curriculum to broaden and deepen those skills. Meanwhile, the linguistically-oriented buy the advanced CD programs for their languages - the Rosetta Stone courses are popular. I've got the first 2 of 4 levels of the Rosetta Stone Arabic course myself. But those programs are okay for conversational "standard" Arabic, not so good for extensive command of grammar and rhetorical patterns and don't address the dialect issue at all.

Since America has military bases in several Middle-Eastern countries, they should have language training there, big time.

But whether it's as pressing as training soldiers in constantly evolving urban / counterinsurgency tactics is questionable.

I don't know if speaking the language is important enough but being able to read arabic letters is. So do the grunts learn that?

One problem is that College programs in Middle Eastern studies, where languages like farsi and arabic are taught, are for the most part dominated by the most leftwing, anti-American, pro-jihad people thay can find. Go check out Martin Kramer's web site. Before we can get adequately trained people in the army, the Marines are going to have to do to American Universities, what they did to Fallujah. And it won't be a moment too soon.

I'm surprised no one has come up with the obvious: We currently have access to a large pool of native Arabic speakers, many of whom are being trained in American military tactics, leadership and organization. We award citizenship to non-US born who serve in our armed forces. We are not-so-good at teaching non-English languages and making them stick, but we are really good at ESL training and assimilation. Suggest anything?

Yup. However, see my comments above about the differences in customs and dialects between countries. 'Arabic speakers' are not necessarily interchangeable or equivalent ... ditto in spades for 'Chinese'.

If you speak French you can understand to a large degree Italian and Spanish. The differences in Arab are smaller so you wont speak the local dialect but you will be able to get by.

Robert Schwartz stated, "One problem is that College programs in Middle Eastern studies, where languages like farsi and arabic are taught, are for the most part dominated by the most leftwing, anti-American, pro-jihad people thay can find."

Mr. Schwartz (and others), I'm military and am majoring in a "liberal arts" degree and have taken language courses at the university level. I think you are making a gross generalization with your statement (above).

At several universities I have either taken classes at or went to for seminars or other things, I have never run into anyone who is "pro-jihad" and/or "anti-american".

Are there people who question the course of action of our govt? Sure and that is well within their rights here in America.
I've many years in the military and I for one welcome the discourse.

You also stated, "Before we can get adequately trained people in the army, the Marines are going to have to do to American Universities, what they did to Fallujah."

Ummm.... WTF, over? I have several MOS's (including infantry from when I was in the Corps) and that statement paints you as a bonified nut-job.

What we need to do is pound the piss out of the leadership for not building up the number and quality of military linguists in Middle Eastern languages over the last decade or two.

We've been involved in the area since Pres. CARTER declared the Middle East an area of "strategic importance" to the US.
We fought a war in 1991 and have had a permanent force in the area since then.

Why didn't the brass at the Pentagon build up our Lingust corps and also develop and push training to the lowest levels that was oriented to understanding the Middle East and fighting over there??

Mr Schwartz, I resent your implication that our military should take up arms against our own citizens.

You sir, have your head up your a$$ past your clavical.

Regards,
~DA (A former Marine, Soldier and American Citizen)

Hi
a lot of people think that 'why' people might or might not learn a language is due to the fact of 'what' do you expect to do with it, but in my humble opinion, the fact that you 'want' to learn a language and enjoy speaking, writing, understanding, and reading it is what really motivates you. If you 'respect' that langauge and not just want to learn it to bomb people, or do business, then the motivation level dropps. As English speakers, one tends to look down on other cultures and langauges, and that's 'why' we don't really learn them that well.
you don't have to agree, but i think that's 'what' it is.