Calculus of Arabic Translation

Article Details

Global Watchtower

Common Sense Advisory Blogs

Posted by Donald A. DePalma on August 25, 2005 in the following blogs: Interpreting, Translation and Localization
Pages \| \|

In this op-ed article entitled "Lost in Translation", Colonel Hammes writes that American forces in Iraq have just 1 or 2 interpreters for each company of 140 soldiers. His team in country had 2 Americans and 22 Iraqis, but no interpreters. He wonders why the single American contractor that has a "sole source contract" with the U.S. Department of Defense is unable to provide enough translators. We can think of a few reasons why Americans don't invest in strategic languages -- money, isolationism, and English everywhere top our list.

Hammes notes that the typical Iraqi interpreter in Iraq receives about US$400 per month. Given the fact that they must put their lives on the line serving with targeted troops from the "coalition of the willing," 400 bucks every 4 weeks seems low. Hammes proposes paying the Iraqis $200,000 per year (nearly $17,000 per month) for this hazardous duty pay.

Then he calculates the potential return on investment of these well-paid but still risky intepreting jobs. He notes that a dead U.S. soldier costs the Pentagon $500,000 in death benefits; a seriously injured trooper costs the government much more in long-term care. Thus, an investment of $200,000 per year could take many more troops out of harm's way and save the Department of Defense lots of money.

He also suggests employing more Arab-speaking Americans back in the States to translate Iraqi materials, part of the counter-intelligence backlog. Hammes notes that "there is no reason for such delays: anything captured in Iraq in can be quickly scanned and e-mailed to the appropriate government agencies" -- where they apparenly gather dust as they await processing.

Maybe having an ex-Marine raise the language issue in the national press will embarrass the U.S. Congress to finally pass the inadequate National Security Language Act or stronger, better funded legislation. Better yet, it might drive some rational political decisions about U.S. military policies and preparedness. But given America's long-term inability to come to grips with strategic language issues, we won't hold our breaths.

Categories