Shortage of Linguists Hurting U.S. War on Terror. Surprised?
Aug 31st, 2009 | 30 responses
An article in the Washington Times this morning, titled “EXCLUSIVE: Lack of translators hurts U.S. war on terror,” caught my attention.
Not because it is a surprise that our nation is woefully short of linguists and translators.
Not because such shortage does indeed hobble our ability to effectively fight the war on terrorism, especially in the Pakistan-Afghanistan regions.
It caught my attention because the otherwise timely and factual article, in my opinion, left one critical factor out in its commentary on this important issue.
But more about this in a moment.
First, what the article does say.
It tells us that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence finds that the necessary cadre of U.S. intelligence linguists skilled in regional languages such as Pashto, Dari and Urdu “remains essentially nonexistent.”
In its 2010 budget report, the Committee warns: “Persistent critical shortages in some languages contribute to the loss of intelligence information and affect the ability of the intelligence community to process and exploit what it does collect.”
The article tells us that “the gap has become critical in the war effort, especially in the Afghanistan-Pakistan theater, where al Qaeda and Taliban operatives text message, e-mail and talk in languages that the intelligence community had largely ignored before 2001.” and that “intercepting phone and radio calls in the region’s native tongues is critical to monitoring terrorist camps and movements in Pakistan’s tribal areas.”
The article also tells us about the financial incentives used to try to “lure” more people with foreign language skills—”including hiring bonuses and additional pay for current officers”—and about problems with some “attractive candidates” passing the review for security clearances.
Some other reasons given for the shortages:
There are many recent immigrants and first-generation U.S. citizens with needed language skills, but they cannot pass the security background checks.
A top-secret security clearance is required to “listen and translate al Qaeda telephone calls, or interrogate a suspect,” but investigators often found that the candidate belonged to a mosque where extremism was preached, or had relatives back home deemed ‘not trustworthy,” according to a former intelligence officer.
While native speakers are preferred, the intelligence community also relies on trained Americans. “But Pashto, Dari and other dialects are difficult to learn and take years to master. Americans cannot duplicate the intricate knowledge of native speakers,” and, according to the former intelligence officer, “Once they are trained that well they can make more money elsewhere.”
One possible reason for our current shortage of linguists and translators kept coming to mind—and I kept looking for it in the Washington Times, to no avail.
Could one reason possibly be the fact that an untold number of potential linguists are already “weeded-out” during background investigations because they are gay?
Could it be because many talented language students at the Defense Language Institute (DLI) and at other language learning institutions are eliminated—after enormous expenditures of personal effort, manpower, time and funds—because they are discovered to be gay?
Could it be because many more experienced linguists and translators—with language skills critical to our national security and who are doing a superb job of protecting it—are purged because they are caught in “the clenches of the homosexual discharge machine,” as Nathaniel Frank tells us in excerpts from his book “Unfriendly Fire,” in a March 18, 2009, New York Times article?
And, as Frank says, “because the added burdens, that gays alone had to bear, were too much.”?
Frank cites the example of Jarrod Chlapowski, who…
Was so proud of finishing the army’s basic training just months before September 11th, 2001, that he had the Chinese character for “honor” tattooed on his shoulder…Chlapowski studied Korean at DLI and graduated as a cryptologic voice interceptor, finishing second in his class. He served in Korea as an interpreter for the 3rd Military Intelligence Battalion on sensitive reconnaissance missions. Eventually he earned the Army achievement medal and an Army commendation medal for leadership and training.
But,
As time wore on, Chlapowski watched friends and other soldiers get caught up in the clutches of the gay ban, and it led to a deepening paranoia. “You’re always going to be paranoid,” he said, that someone who knows your open secret could “take issue with it.” When he transferred to a new unit at Ft. Lewis, WA to train soldiers, he didn’t know anyone there and was unsure of the climate. “I opted to put myself back in the closet and I was miserable,” he said. “Within a few months I knew this was something I couldn’t continue.” Chlapowski chose not to re-enlist and left the army in November, 2005.
There are many more stories similar to Chlapowski’s, but, according to Frank.
More damning…is the number of similar stories that have piled up since “don’t ask, don’t tell” took effect. And they were not stories that the military wanted to share. The firing of gay Arabic language specialists during America’s war on terrorism is a particularly stark illustration of the gay ban’s costs to national security. And so it’s no surprise that the Pentagon has not been forthcoming about the number of linguists fired.
With respect to such numbers, Frank says that it took a Freedom of Information Act request and pressure from members of Congress to release the incomplete figures of 73 discharges of language specialists from the Defense Language Institute between 1998 and 2004. Of these, 17 were Arabic speakers, 11 spoke Russian, 18 studied Korean, 6 were training in Persian-Farsi, and the rest studied other languages.
And, in February, 2005, a GAO report was released that included figures dating back to 1994 and which showed that “757 troops with ‘critical occupations’ were fired under the policy. These included voice interceptors, interrogators, translators, Explosive Ordinance Disposal Specialists, signal intelligence analysts, and missile and crypto logic technicians. Three hundred twenty-two fired service members had skills in what the military deems ‘an important foreign language.’”
Finally, back to the Washington Times article:
CIA Director Leon E. Panetta, who has vowed to change the culture at Langley, sent out a message in May to employees announcing “an aggressive plan to build the truly multilingual work force we need.” He said he wants to double the number of analysts and clandestine service officers who speak foreign languages and “dramatically transform the way CIA trains in foreign language capability.”
While Panetta is referring to the CIA specifically; while the Washington Times article refers to the critical shortage of foreign-language speakers and translators at U.S. national security agencies in general; and while Frank focuses on “the ongoing purges of gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines with language skills critical to waging the war on terrorism,” a real change in culture with respect to homosexuals serving our country—whether in our security agencies or in our armed forces—would certainly go a long way towards easing such shortages—and many other problems and injustices.
Nathaniel Frank’s book “Friendly Fire” addresses the entire insidious “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. It is published by Thomas Dunne Books, an imprint of St. Martin’s Press, LLC.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
30 Responses to “Shortage of Linguists Hurting U.S. War on Terror. Surprised?”
So … if you speak Arabic then you're gay! If not, then perhaps this article should be edited a bit better.
Frith_Ra — Your comment doesn't make sense. There's nothing in the article that implies that all Arabic speaking people are gay. That…doesn't make any sense at all.
On the other hand, it does seem that a disproportionate number of the translators and language specialists are gay. Not sure why that would be, but I do know that there are two people I consider close friends who are on duty in the Middle East, and both are translators, and both are gay.
Anyway, DE, I agree that it is odd that the DADT policy was never mentioned at all.
I'm no more surprised by this than I was by the recent bizarre “discovery” by the media that the nation's currency is contamined by cocaine residue — something which was common knowledge in the 1980s.
roro80:
“On the other hand, it does seem that a disproportionate number of the translators and language specialists are gay”
Interesting comment. I'll try to find out, if possible, what the percentages are/were.
However, because of the very fact that gay linguists would want to keep their sexual orientation confidential, probably almost impossible to find out. I doubt it that a “disproportionate number” would be gay. But then again, it all dependeds what “disproportionate” is.
Thanks for your comment
Dorian
On the other hand, it does seem that a disproportionate number of the translators and language specialists are gay. Not sure why that would be, but I do know that there are two people I consider close friends who are on duty in the Middle East, and both are translators, and both are gay.
Interesting thought, roro, but I suspect that's more likely related to one's circle of acquaintances / friends, than disproportionate numbers of linguists.
I went through DLI (as an Arabic linguist, no less) pre-DODT — late 1980s. Back then, of course, homosexuality was banned outright. Since these MOS's require a TS clearance, everyone was essentially 'in the closet' (if they were serving in the military at all). Even so, there were a few people I knew who were gay at DLI. Nobody cared — at least amongst us lowly soldiers.
The shortages (and they've been short since the beginning of this war) are the result of the several factors outlined in Dorian's post: higher $ for language specialists on the private market, difficulty obtaining TS clearances for native speakers, and idiocy in disallowing qualified individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. But even if all the gay people who could be serving *were* doing so, there still wouldn't be enough language specialists, for the other reasons. It's a highly specialized classification.
Thanks for sharing your insight into the linguists issue, Polimom.
Would be delighted to read some of your experiences.
I still plan to see if I can get some stats–difficult or nearly impossible a that may be.
Dorian
DE, Polimom — I agree that maybe it's just a matter of my personal circumstances, in that a vast majority of the military-aged men I know are gay. However, when I think of the statement “there aren't enough soldiers in the military”, I think about the fact that many young people have been very turned off by how our military has been used in the last decade and by how we see the men and women treated by government (healthcare, multiple tours, etc). Yet, as DE, when I hear that the military is specifically hurting for linguists, my mind jumps to gay people. Of those advocates against DADT that I've heard interviewed, the majority have been linguists or translators. Of course, perhaps these ex-military folks are being chosen to be advocates *because* they fall into this field, which both requires eloquence and huge amounts of expensive training (meaning that they are particularly valuable and difficult to replace). It doesn't explain why that matches my personal experience so well, but two data points do not a trend make, I suppose. I'd love to know the ratio of language specialists kicked out / total kicked out, and compare that to total language specialists / total in the military. I guess there could be some reason why a linguist might be easier to out than those in other areas of the military, but I can't really think of what that would be. Correlation vs causation and all that…
I'd also like to point and snicker at this:
“the clenches of the homosexual discharge machine”
I felt the need to share that because, evidently, I've got the sense of humor of a 12-year-old boy.
I went back to Nathaniel Frank's 13-page article in the New York Times to see if I could find statistics as to what percentage of linguists (in the military) are gay.
As I expected and commented above, because of the very nature of the issue (gay linguists not being able to reveal their sexual orientation), it is probably impossible to get such hard data.
One can only “guesstimate” that it is a relatively high percentage.
Polimom, in a comment above gives some insight.
Frank, in his book and NYT column says that the Defense Language Institute sitting on a hill in Monterey, California, teaches 80 percent of the government's foreign language classes, with 1000 faculty members serving 3800 students.
“Its location — in Northern California, less than two hours from San Francisco — also seems to attract a large share of gay students. “There were way too many gay people at DLI for anybody to fear the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy,” said Alastair Gamble, a gay student who arrived at DLI in 2001. While there, he was out to all his gay peers and to any enlisted personnel who seemed gay-friendly. “Nobody cared,” he explained. “I knew someone who was a flaming queen in a uniform, and nobody cared. Sometimes we lived on halls that were more than 50 percent homosexual. I never even got a sideways glance.” “
Such anecdotal evidence,along with the large numbers of gay linguists forced out, and the serious shortages we are facing (as a result of this and other factors) are probably as close an indication as to the percentages involved.
As to the other ratios, total gay linguists kicked out/total gay military kicked out, that might not be too hard to come by.
To those who are truly interested in this issue, I highly recommend the reading of Frank's report mentioned above. It addresses some of the issues borached by roro80.
This topic is very old, its been noted long ago.
'This topic is very old, its been noted long ago”
So are discrimination and bigotry, Leonidas.
“Its location — in Northern California, less than two hours from San Francisco — also seems to attract a large share of gay students.
Dorian, DLI is a military school. One doesn't just sign up to go there because it's close to home or something. I myself went from Louisiana, for instance, and my roommates were from Colorado, Texas, and elsewhere. I don't remember meeting anyone from San Francisco (doesn't mean nobody was, but it would have been coincidental). Frank's implication that proximity has something to do with the number of gay linguists is ludicrous.
“Sometimes we lived on halls that were more than 50 percent homosexual. I never even got a sideways glance.”
Ummmm….. methinks there's a bit of exaggeration going on here. Not only is this statement *radically* different from anything I ever saw there, but I go back to Monterey at least once a year — and have never heard of anything resembling this description.
Just quoting Frank and a student at DLI, but your comments are well taken…you were there
Thanks
Dorian
We're losing the war on terror because there'd not enough perverts in the military…. OK…. If you say so.
:rolls eyes::
Is it just me or are the military and civilian jobs treated the same in this post? I realize that we loose translators because of the military's ban on homosexual behavior but what are the numbers? I always assumed that it had no effect on civilian agencies is this trying to say it does? I'm not sure that gays in the military is a big deal but I'm not in the military so I leave that to those who know better than I. I can't conceive of it being an issue outside of the military in this day and age and I would have a problem with it being made one. I'm just doubtful that it is the case.
Alright the article that this post was written about is purely about civilian agencies not military translators. Hell if you get discharged for being Gay these guys will give you a job. I see no indication and no basis for a belief that being homosexual would in any way affect the hiring practices of any of the agencies mentioned.
Thanks for the comments and observations, EEllis
While the article that I started of with may have been focused on non-military intelligence agencies, a large part of the national intelligence effort is performed by the Defense Intelligence Agency. (Approximately 7500 men and women work for DIA worldwide as the DIA is the nation’s “primary manager and producer of foreign military intelligence” ).
The DIA employs both military and civilian (DOD employees) intelligence personnel (including linguists). While the CIA does not officially discriminate in its hiring practices against homosexuals, I don't know how a person's sexual orientation is handled during the security clearances background investigation process.
The FBI also is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
When it comes to the DIA—and while the other two agencies specifically state in their hiring policies that sexual orientation is not a factor–at the DIA, sexual orientation is not specifically stated. As you have stated (and I have elaborated on) military linguists at the DIA defintely fall under the DADT policy, and there is a large number of them.
My point was that while we are hurting for linguists in the intelligence community, we are still rejecting a good number because of sexual orientation. I tried to make that clear in my closing paragraph (below), but perhaps no sufficiently clear:
“While Panetta is referring to the CIA specifically; while the Washington Times article refers to the critical shortage of foreign-language speakers and translators at U.S. national security agencies in general; and while Frank focuses on “the ongoing purges of gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines with language skills critical to waging the war on terrorism,” a real change in culture with respect to homosexuals serving our country—whether in our security agencies or in our armed forces—would certainly go a long way towards easing such shortages—and many other problems and injustices.”
No gays in the military. Keep them OUT or keep their mouths shut. All this “gay interpreter” crap is a bunk argument. No need to lower the standards for the military just because they are short a certain skill. If you want more interpreters, then open another DLI and train more people. This “gay rights” thing is just getting stupid. Quit making excuses for these people.
DHY2k:
You may call Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach who flew 88 missions over Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq as a fighter pilot and won a medal of valor—and others like him—”perverts.” I won't
Rage on, Father Time, rage on. I know how you do enjoy it so.
Homosexuals are allowed to serve in the military. They're just not allowed to flaunt it, Or tell, and tell, and tell, and tell, ad nauseum…
I can see them now in their dress uniforms (well parts of the uniforms) at the “pride parades” leading each other around with dog collars and ball gags and such..
NO !!
“They're just not allowed to flaunt it, Or tell, and tell, and tell, and tell, ad nauseum… “
You mean, like a straight man might talk about his wife and family back home? No, we mustn't have that, must we?
“I can see them now in their dress uniforms (well parts of the uniforms) at the “pride parades” leading each other around with dog collars and ball gags and such..”
You mean, like you see them do every day in other highly civilized countries with superb military—as in Isarel?
Re: My comment above
Could not edit it any more.
Of course that should be Israel.
Just google up “folsom street fair” You'll see.
roro80–
–[Rage on, Father Time, rage on. I know how you do enjoy it so.]–
Oh stop it. You know as well as I that the founding fathers would side with Father_Time and not roro80 on this issue.
D. E.Rodriguez–
Yeah but you have to admit that gay pride parades are freak shows at best. Shall we have straight pride parades and run around half naked in bits and pieces of our military uniforms celebrating the very fact that we can actually have sex? Only an absolute ass would associate with such infantile depravity, gay or straight! You want to defend it on the basis of not being discriminatory. Please call me a bigot because I discriminate against gays in the military the same as I discriminate against Nazis in the military. I do so because I BELIEVE it is better for the military if we discriminate over some issues.
Father_Time —
“You know as well as I that the founding fathers would side with Father_Time and not roro80 on this issue.”
I'm very happy to admit that your views on gay people belong in the 18th century. Sh*t changes, dude.
DHY2K — You do realize, of course, that the Folsom Street Fair is for fetishists of all orientations, right? Sure, there's a decent-sized gay population that comes out for the fun of the day, but by no means is it just for gay people. Fun for everyone!
“Shall we have straight pride parades and run around half naked in bits and pieces of our military uniforms celebrating the very fact that we can actually have sex? “
You mean Marti Gras? It is fabulous, isn't it?
“Please call me a bigot because I discriminate against gays in the military”
You are a bigot. You're welcome.
Ok, but in context: “Please call me a bigot because I discriminate against gays in the military the same as I discriminate against Nazis in the military.”
Well, technically, you're allowed to be a racist *sshole in the military, admit freely that white supremacy is an activity you participate in on your off time, and not get kicked out for that alone. Also: gay people and Nazis don't actually have too much in common, just as an FYI.