Why Language Matters

Why should American military officers learn foreign languages? For that matter, why should Foreign Service Officers or any other representatives of the American government? The answer is more complex than I used to think.

Conventional wisdom, especially in the wake of September 11th, points to the appalling rates of foreign language acquisition among Americans and warns that we're facing a crisis. We consistently seem to be behind the power curve training up speakers for the current war (let alone the next war). Congress, the military services, the intelligence agencies, and the State Department are constantly cooking up new ideas to improve our country's foreign language capacity.

This conventional wisdom has its critics, however. Some wonder why we should bother training new foreign language speakers at all, rather than just recruiting more native speakers. Others claim that the US government should rely primarily on short-term trained interpreters, rather than trying to squeeze foreign language into the crowded careers of its employees. I've also encountered the idea of consolidating foreign language speakers in reachback cells. If you are in the middle of rural Afghanistan and need someone who speaks Pashto, you dial up the reachback cell on your satellite radio. Much more efficient than providing every unit on the ground with its own interpreter. Right? Still others question the need for foreign language acquisition at all, especially in the staff world. Senior military officers have told me that if an officer works in a US embassy abroad or on a policy desk somewhere, foreign language really isn't necessary. Translators are available when necessary, but most information that an officer needs for analysis is available in English. I was surprised to find this logic at work within the US embassy here in Jordan. While I have met some FAOs and State FSOs who are keeping up their Arabic, I've met others who have let their language atrophy because they don't need it--and don't consider it that important. Language has enough skeptics that I've had to carefully think through why I believe language is so important.

The questions surrounding foreign language are becoming even more complicated for two reasons. First, knowledge of the English language continues to grow even in unlikely developing countries. When I arrived in Jordan I was shocked how many people speak English. I do not consider myself "immersed" here and have to make a proactive, daily effort to find environments where I can practice my Arabic. Second, automatic translation technology is getting so good. Google's translating engine is remarkable for written text; on many subjects it translates far better than I can after a year of full-time Arabic study. Automatic translation of speech is progressing slower, but it is progressing. DARPA is "aiming to get an affordable iPod-size interpreter on the chest of every American warrior, foreshadowing the day such devices will be as common as music players" (full article here). With such technology in the pipeline, why does learning a foreign language matter anymore? It's a good question.

My view on all this is rather complicated. A common fallacy about foreign language is that it's one-size-fits-all; in fact, this fallacy is codified in the DLPT tests we use to assess foreign language ability, which reduce a person's skills to two numbers. Language is NOT one-size-fits-all, so I support a balanced plan to improve our country's foreign language capacity. I believe recruiting more native speakers is vital, think that reachback cells could certainly have a role when field interpreters are scarce, and welcome better automatic translation technology. It will be an exciting and revolutionary day when automatic speech translation is commonplace. With that said, I still believe learning human languages the old fashioned way is important. Why? This is the crux: foreign language ability is not just about converting information from one format to another. It's about human relationships.

If you view language skills merely as tools to convert information, I can understand why they seems redundant. The curriculum at DLI is focused almost entirely on reading and listening to the news. It's a disheartening exercise to spend an entire year learning to translate something that Google can do better. And with the abundance of English newspapers and the availability of translations, a lot of the information an analyst might want is indeed available in English (although certainly not all of it). As technology improves, the need for translation services will probably decrease.

But language is more than a mechanism for converting information; it's a means of building relationships. A few years ago, while General Abizaid was still CENTCOM commander, I flew a C-17 into Cairo to pick him up after a meeting. While I sat on the parking ramp with my engines running, knocking out checklists for the next takeoff, I looked out the window and saw General Abizaid moving among a circle of grinning Egyptian military officers. He was shaking hands, talking, doing the kinds of things a combatant commander is supposed to do: keeping our alliances strong at a time when the situation in Iraq was critical. Because he is fluent in Arabic, I presume he was doing at least some of this in Arabic. I remember thinking, Wow. This is why language matters. Last summer I met a former Olmsted scholar who lived in Germany, and ended her military career by running the White House Situation Room. After the invasion of Iraq she participated in a meeting between newly-minted US general officers and senior Germany military officers. At the time, the tension between the US and Germany ("Old Europe") was extraordinary. During the question and answer session, she astonished the audience by asking--in perfect German--what they as young general officers could do to repair the relationship between their two militaries. She said she could hear a pin drop in the room.

That is why language matters. It builds relationships and wins trust. That's also why language speakers shouldn't simply be rerouted to policy desks or in hidden cubicles watching Al Jazeera; we need commanders who can speak foreign languages as well. That is the unique vision behind the Olmsted program (of which General Abizaid is a product).

Here in Jordan, I've found that being a decent Arabic speaker has opened doors and invited trust in unlikely ways. I have to think that a US soldier who walks into an Afghan or Iraqi village speaking the language will have more trust than a soldier who calls up a translator on his satellite radio. If he slaps the DARPA voicebox on his chest and lets a synthesized voice do all his speaking, I imagine it would just scare the hell out of everybody. That's certainly a useful technology in the absence of human translators, but how much more Darth Vader can we get?

Language is extremely hard. We need as many language solutions as we can get, and technology certainly can and should help fill the gap. But no matter how good the technology gets, no matter how prevalent English becomes, old-fashioned speaking of a foreign language still matters.