A new book out on the role of interpreters in the fiasco in Iraq

[Machjo]

Irak in Translation — De l ’art de perdre une guerre sans connaître la langue de son adversaire .

(Iraq in Translation: on the art of losing a war without knowing the language of the adversary)

By Mathieu Guidère

ISBN 978-2-84724- 211-9.

To order in Canada (French version; English not yet available)

http://www.amazon. ca/Irak-translat ion-Guiire/ dp/2847242112

Though this book focuses on the Iraq war, it definitely raises grave concerns about our troops in Afghanistan. If the Canadian military is giving this situation no more thought than the US military is, then our soldiers are definitely being put in the way of more harm than is necessary.

Below is a translation of the introduction to the book on Amazon France

http://www.amazon. fr/Irak-translat ion-perdre- conna%C3% AEtre-adversaire /dp/2847242112

‘In every war, there is an original error. The U.S. mistake in Iraq was to believe that we could democratize a country without even knowing its language. That technology could replace man, that manipulation could substitute persuasion. In short, that we could win the hearts and minds by ignoring culture. This book offers a journey into the heart of the chaos in Iraq by following the footsteps of those who know it best: the auxiliaries, translators and interpreters who have worked or are still working for the Americans, but are seen and treated as "traitors" and "collaborators" by their countrymen. Those whom the Americans call “linguists” have paid the heaviest price in this war that never ceases to create victims. But these cultural intermediaries who are essential to the pacification of the country have been accused of treason and felony on both sides, on the part of Americans as on the part of Iraqis. Who are these auxiliaries of the U.S. military? Where are they from and what do they do? How are they recruited and what becomes of them afterwards? An investigation into a real scandal, this book explores the root reasons for the American failure in Iraq. It explains, from unedited and detailed investigation, why the coalition forces have never reached their first objective in this war: to win the hearts and minds against extremism and barbarism.’

The author of this book is a Professor at the University of Geneva, a specialist in multilingual strategic security and on the Arab world, once research director at the Special Military College of Saint-Cyr (France). He has published many books, including three on Al-Qaida.

And here are a few other comments on the book translated from another article:

“At the end of 2006, of 130,000 active US soldiers in Iraq, only 130 knew Arabic, but only at a rudimentary level.”

“There was only one interpreter for every company (around 150 men). This fact can be explained in part by the phrase: ‘Quite evidently, languages did not enjoy much interest in the superpower which had made English the chief language worldwide, and tended to satisfy itself with that.’”

‘According to a high-level CIA official, learning Arabic is not so easy: ‘it is easier to teach a pilot to fly a fighter jet than to speak Arabic with precision.’”

‘Private companies hired interpreters in Iraq and other Arab countries for the US army. The chief motive of most of these language auxiliaries for doing this particularly risky work was the ability to make much money. Among these ‘interpreters’ we often found taxi drivers, pizza delivery men, without a true knowledge of English: “Interpreters babbled in broken English and essentially communicated by signs with the soldiers.”’

“Most of the many Arabic speakers who were accepted to work as interpreters spoke English poorly; and most of the Arabic-speaking American soldiers or interpreters spoke Arabic poorly and had no knowledge of Arab culture, let alone Iraqi, which led to many misinterpretations and errors. Not only did US military personnel depend on the competence and trustworthiness of these interpreters, but journalists, prison guards, and the tortured too, whose fate could depend on only one word being misinterpreted on purpose or by mistake.’

‘Profiteers have been many and on both sides and in the most varied ways. Instead of receiving 6,000 USD as per contract with Titan, the chief US language enterprise in Iraq, some interpreters received only 1,500. As an anecdote, an Iraqi interpreter had exploited the naivety of newly arrived US soldiers on their travels. For example, to buy an Iraqi flag as a souvenir, the seller would asked for 5 dollars; the interpreter interpreted it as 45 dollar, and pocketed the difference.’

Unfortunately, the book is not available in English yet, but it appears to be yet another valuable addition to the collection of books showing how our governments must take second-language teaching policies more seriously than they have been.. This also raises questions concerning the state of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.

[Machjo]

Here's another book on a similar topic but in English:

http://www.amazon. com/Translation- Conflict- Mona-Baker/ dp/041538396X/ ref=sr_1_ 9?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239657546&sr=8-9

I know little of the book beyond its summary, but the summary itself was a fascinating read, and does deal with translation issues in Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and Kosovo, and also brings up the issue of the growth of political activism within the field of translation and interpretation itself.

I don't know how much the book deals with the Canadian military in Afghanistan, though, but it might be a good read for those who are interested in the relationship between language, war, and the surprising power the translator yields in such an environment. What many don't realise is that, if the soldier doesn't know the local language, he has no choice but to trust the interpreter. After all, if he can't understand the interpreter, how can he know if the interpreter is being truthful or not. This can be a potential vulnerability for troops, especially in light of research that shows that the learning of another language does in fact affect one's sence of identity. The bad news is that, based on such research, a tranlator who knows Arabic or Pashta is likely to identify more with other speakers of that language. The good news is, his knowledge of English is likely to give him a stronger sence of identity with other English-speakers too. But then all kinds of other factors come into play that can influence his sence of loyalty to either side, both sides, or neither side in any conflict.

[seabee]

Time to put to rest the myth that English is a universal language.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Since the US has won in Iraq, I'm not sure the point of this thread.

[waldo]

Since the US has won in Iraq, ...

and... what... did... it... win - exactly?

(note: regime change is already taken by the shrub apologist - bush_cheney... your answer will require other catch-phrasing)

[Machjo]

Since the US has won in Iraq, I'm not sure the point of this thread.

Last I checked, the Iraqi government's alliance with the US is lukewarm at best. It's already begun feriendly relations with Iran. And US troops are still needed there.

We could possibly argue that there is a victory in that the regime has at least luke-warm relations with the US. But that's nothing new. Saddam Hussain was even getting help from the US before. So we're not talking about anything new here that wasn't already applicable before. Democracy? That could be viewd as a victory. bear in mind though that Saddam Hussain's regime tended to be more secularist than the current one which now wants to be more decidedly Muslism. The will of the people have spoken.

Hussain's regime was not on friendly terms with Iran. This one is. So it might be a democracy, but likely it will turn out to be a very much Muslim-based democracy with closser ties with Iran.

Now as for Afghanistan. Let's look at the new law out concerning women. It likewise was established by a democratically elected government.

Now I'd like to say that I don't necessarily see closer ties between Iran and Iraq as a bad thing. But in terms of its being viewed as a bvictory for the US, especially when we consider that a US presence is still needed, is premature tat best, depending on our definition of 'success'.

[M.Dancer]

Now as for Afghanistan. Let's look at the new law out concerning women. It likewise was established by a democratically elected government.

Yes lets look at it.

It was a proposal.

It was squashed.

Done looking?

[Leafless]

Time to put to rest the myth that English is a universal language.

It is no myth.

English is universal in comparison to what any other language is going to, or can achieve relating to world wide linguistic universality.

[bjre]

It is no myth.

English is universal in comparison to what any other language is going to, or can achieve relating to world wide linguistic universality.

English is popular. But can we say it universal?

In 1999, The top 5 languages by population are:

1	CHINESE, MANDARIN [CHN]	  China			 885,000,000
2	SPANISH [SPN]				Spain			 332,000,000
3	ENGLISH [ENG]				United Kingdom	322,000,000
4	BENGALI [BNG]				Bangladesh		189,000,000
5	HINDI [HND]				  India			 182,000,000

http://paginaspersonales.deusto.es/abaitua.../nlp/top100.htm

Even for language in internet, English is about only one third. Most people in the world don`t understand English.

TOP TEN LANGUAGES IN THE INTERNET

			   Internet Users  Internet		 Growth			   Internet Users	 World Population
			   by Language	 Penetration	  in Internet		  % of Total		 for this Language
							   by Language	  ( 2000 - 2008 )						 (2008 Estimate) 

English			451,951,053	36.2 %		   218.4 %			   28.6 %			 1,247,862,351
Chinese			321,361,613	23.5 %		   894.8 %			   20.3 %			 1,365,138,028
Spanish			129,251,474	31.6 %		   610.9 %				8.2 %			   408,760,807
WORLD TOTAL	  1,581,571,589	23.6 %		   338.1 %			   100.0 %			6,710,029,070

http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats7.htm

For the university graduated students, China has twice as many university graduates as the United States.

http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?ID=7122_2...mp;ID2=DO_TOPIC

[M.Dancer]

For the university graduated students, China has twice as many university graduates as the United States.

http://www.uis.unesco.org/ev.php?ID=7122_2...mp;ID2=DO_TOPIC

Well that's a meaningless statistic...they also have 43 times as many illiterates

[bjre]

Well that's a meaningless statistic...they also have 43 times as many illiterates

According to CIA world fact book, China is much better than democratic India

China: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k/print/ch.html

Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 90.9%

male: 95.1%

female: 86.5% (2000 census)

India: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k/print/in.html

Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 61%

male: 73.4%

female: 47.8% (2001 census)

[M.Dancer]

According to CIA world fact book, China is much better than democratic India

China: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k/print/ch.html

Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 90.9%

male: 95.1%

female: 86.5% (2000 census)

India: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...k/print/in.html

Literacy: definition: age 15 and over can read and write

total population: 61%

male: 73.4%

female: 47.8% (2001 census)

Maybe so...but in India, they can read what they want...

[bjre]

Maybe so...but in India, they can read what they want...

But even in Canada, you can not have so ambitious expectation ... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=409749

[M.Dancer]

But even in Canada, you can not have so ambitious expectation ... http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=409749

Are you saying that the opinions of the World Social Website cannot be read here? No That can't be it...

You have a deep set slave mentality....

[bjre]

Are you saying that the opinions of the World Social Website cannot be read here? No That can't be it...

You have a deep set slave mentality....

I don`t know what is "World Social Website" and did not find it by googling it.

About your comment "but in India, they can read what they want...", I would say it is impossible.

For example, recently I want to read a book "The cartoon : a short history of graphic comedy and satire",

I try to find it in library, and found it is only available in 2nd fl of Toronto Reference Library. That means if I don't go there, I would not be able to read it. And there are many other books that I can not reach because they are not available in Toronto.

For poor people, information always expansive, if they don't have a computer, don't have an internet connection, don't have access to a library or there are just too few books in library, how can you expect "They can read what they want"? Are they live in Utopia? I am not sure if you are in a good health condition these days. Otherwise, how can you make such comment without thinking.

[Machjo]

It is no myth.

English is universal in comparison to what any other language is going to, or can achieve relating to world wide linguistic universality.

That's relative. According to Statscan 2006, about 55% of Quebecers claimed to not know English. And in Nunavut, 8% claimed to know neither English nor French.

Accroding to a study in Europe in 2001, about 6% of Western Europeans could translate a basic English sentence properly.

[Machjo]

Yes lets look at it.

It was a proposal.

It was squashed.

Done looking?

Where'd you read that? I just scanned the CBC and have found nothing on this yet. yes, there's intense international pressure, but with an election looming, Karzai's been proving especially resilient, ironically enough! Wouldn't want to lose votes now, would we?

[Machjo]

Well that's a meaningless statistic...they also have 43 times as many illiterates

So then how would you expect them to learn English?

Clearly English is not and never will be the universal language. An international language? it is already, among others. The universal language?Not unless we reform the spelling, pronunciation, grammar, and other aspects of the language so drasticlally as to make it unrecognizable.

Add to that, that according to the lake Kent Jones, an expert in aeronautical communicaitons, about 15% of aircrashes are caused by the language barrier alone. he adds that English is unsafe for aeronautical communications by design. Too many dialects, accents, homonyms, homophones, exceptions, etc. You can read about it here:

http://www.kordynet.com/docs/Plane%20Speaking.pdf

And if you look at the dates, you'll see that these plane crashes are recent examples.

And here's another close call, albeit more fortunate:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/ne...icle4116523.ece

And that's from 2008! A Polish pilot's poor English nearly caused a crash near London Heathrow.

Some might wonder why we tolerate such low quality English. it's political. Do you honestly believe, especially in a recession, but even without, that the world would hand over hundreds if not thousands of highly paid pilot and ATC jobs to native English-speakers the world over? If so, I've got a cruise line to selll you for a dollar. Any Canadian should know how political language is, not only in Canada but worldwide.

[M.Dancer]

Where'd you read that? I just scanned the CBC and have found nothing on this yet. yes, there's intense international pressure, but with an election looming, Karzai's been proving especially resilient, ironically enough! Wouldn't want to lose votes now, would we?

You could try this forum....it has been posted and there was much in the media about it including Harper's role in getting the law shelved.

[Machjo]

You could try this forum....it has been posted and there was much in the media about it including Harper's role in getting the law shelved.

I found it, but it's been only after international outcry, and that while Afghanistan still has many foreign troops on its soil. I hope hope the law is shelved for good, especially with an election looming.

[tango]

I'm just wondering about Canada's interpreters in Afghanistan, and found this:

"The Afghan interpreters have been an invaluable assistance to Canada's efforts to help the people of Afghanistan," said Finley spokeswoman Julie Vaux.

"Minister Finley has taken a personal interest in this matter."

Any government plan would apparently be subject to at least two caveats.

Applicants would still need to pass the standard security checks required of all immigrants to Canada, and the program would likely apply only to interpreters with severe injuries like a lost limb.

One interpreter - nicknamed Junior - says many of his colleagues have been killed but he's aware of only four cases where they have lost limbs while working for the Canadian Forces.

Junior is one of them. He lost both legs in a rocket attack two years ago.

He and the others are pleading for help from the Canadian government, saying they are now easily identifiable as interpreters, making them targets for the insurgents.

Security concerns aside, the former forestry worker says he no longer has a future as a legless man in Afghanistan. Sidewalks and wheelchair access are almost non-existent, and there are very few desk jobs for people with reduced mobility.

[Machjo]

I'm just wondering about Canada's interpreters in Afghanistan, and found this:

"The Afghan interpreters have been an invaluable assistance to Canada's efforts to help the people of Afghanistan," said Finley spokeswoman Julie Vaux.

"Minister Finley has taken a personal interest in this matter."

Any government plan would apparently be subject to at least two caveats.

Applicants would still need to pass the standard security checks required of all immigrants to Canada, and the program would likely apply only to interpreters with severe injuries like a lost limb.

One interpreter - nicknamed Junior - says many of his colleagues have been killed but he's aware of only four cases where they have lost limbs while working for the Canadian Forces.

Junior is one of them. He lost both legs in a rocket attack two years ago.

He and the others are pleading for help from the Canadian government, saying they are now easily identifiable as interpreters, making them targets for the insurgents.

Security concerns aside, the former forestry worker says he no longer has a future as a legless man in Afghanistan. Sidewalks and wheelchair access are almost non-existent, and there are very few desk jobs for people with reduced mobility.

Forestry worker.

We all know that even native speakers of a language don't always know it well and don't always know military jargon. It would seem that the DOD is more cocerned about security checks than with whether interpreters are truly qualified to interpret.

[tango]

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan---- Afghan interpreters who have been seriously injured while working with the Canadian army could soon receive help immigrating to Canada, federal government officials say.

Ottawa isn't making any promises but says it has taken an interest in a handful of cases where interpreters have lost their limbs while working with the Canadian military.

Unlike other NATO countries, Canada has no policy on helping injured local staff immigrate. Interpreters maimed in battle are left pleading with Canadian soldiers for help getting Ottawa to notice them.

Officials say the government is now examining options for a special immigration process, as the United States and Australia have done for local employees operating in war zones.

Read the article here ...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078481.html

Edited April 14, 2009 by tango

[Machjo]

I'd like to read stories from Canadian soldiers and especially Afghan locals with their experiences in cross-cultural communication. Where interpreters available? Could they interpret easily? How many interpreters do we have per soldier? What linguistic qualifications do they need?

I'd also like to read from interpreters themselves. If I remember correctly, one video which I believe was titled Iraq for Sale, did in fact interview an interpreter who'd complained about the poor language level of many of his colleagues.

If a soldier can't communicate, then the only language left to him might be to fire a bullet to the chest where a common language could have resolved a misunderstanding more peacefully.

Besides, we're on their soil, so it's not up to them to learn our language. Our soliders are the furriners, so its up to them to communicate with the locals.

[Machjo]

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan---- Afghan interpreters who have been seriously injured while working with the Canadian army could soon receive help immigrating to Canada, federal government officials say.

Ottawa isn't making any promises but says it has taken an interest in a handful of cases where interpreters have lost their limbs while working with the Canadian military.

Unlike other NATO countries, Canada has no policy on helping injured local staff immigrate. Interpreters maimed in battle are left pleading with Canadian soldiers for help getting Ottawa to notice them.

Officials say the government is now examining options for a special immigration process, as the United States and Australia have done for local employees operating in war zones.

Read the article here ...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1078481.html

That's truly shamfeful. We would have been helpless in Afghanistan if it weren't for them. Yet only now do we start to recognize it? They have to beg like dogs for it? And that still doesn't answer to their linguistic qualifications. Even if they know the local language well, do they know English well?