Failure to Communicate

Could the U.S. mission in Afghanistan fall apart simply because of bad translation?

BY NEIL SHEA | AUGUST 23, 2010

At one point in Restrepo, a new documentary film about U.S. soldiers at a small combat outpost in eastern Afghanistan's Korengal Valley, Captain Dan Kearney, the officer in command, is sitting in a shura with the Korengal elders he is trying to win over. A frail-looking man sits before the bullish captain and complains about the arrest of a local man. Kearney at first does not know who the elder is talking about. Then Kearney turns to his Afghan interpreter, or "terp," and in answer to the elder says: "You're not understanding that I don't fucking care."

The F-bomb is called that for a reason: It has power to explode a conversation and obliterate important points. But my main question after watching this scene, so similar to many I've witnessed while reporting on America's wars abroad, was: How is an interpreter, even a very good one, supposed to haul that statement into his own language? Translation is such an everyday act that it is routinely omitted from most discussion of strategy and success. But, badly done, it is fatally dangerous. And the messages lost through faulty translation in Afghanistan are sabotaging the mission there as badly as any physical enemy ever could.

U.S. troops rely on translators. There is no alternative. On the battlefield and in the shuras, young officers like Kearney, raised in the get-down-to-business culture of America and its military, often express themselves to their translators directly and with heaps of slang, roughly the way they might talk to a college buddy. The terp is then expected to decide not only how to translate the words but also how to bridge the gulf of propriety and custom. But although this colloquial language is informal, it is still complex. And unfortunately, it assumes even more common background and idiomatic understanding than a more formal diction would: Think of phrases like "man up," "freedom isn't free," or even "shoulder responsibility" and "build your nation." In the best circumstances, the most successful shuras, it would be unrealistic to expect all this meaning to pass intact to a group of old men from another world. Try filtering it through a translator who didn't attend college, was never your buddy, and didn't grow up surrounded by phrases Americans take for granted, and the chances for error or insult multiply rapidly.

This winter, I spent a month in the Pech Valley, next door to the Korengal, where Restrepo was filmed. There, and in other regions of Afghanistan, I met some pretty good terps who were able to develop the kind of rapport with the Americans that's crucial in understanding language and intent. Many, however, were only partially educated and only passable at their jobs. Quite a few were simply very bad. Language is far more than vocabulary and grammar -- it is culture. Often terps weren't familiar enough with either to understand what the Americans were saying or what it meant. And choosing candidates for this crucial job is often relegated to contractors. When I asked officers why they worked with bad terps, they claimed they didn't have much choice; translators are hired by private companies and bad ones are difficult to replace, partly because demand is so high and the vetting process is slow.

BAY ISMOYO/AFP/Getty Images

 SUBJECTS:
 

Neil Shea is a contributing writer with National Geographic magazine.

NICOLAS19

2:41 AM ET

August 24, 2010

another meaningless article

Seriously, what's the point of this white-washing of your non-progress? The problem is much more profound than it would be blamed on the "undereducated translators". You are occupying a country where you're not welcome. No translator will ever change that. If nine years of US rule didn't make them love you, nicer words won't make them either.

 

ZT

1:31 PM ET

August 25, 2010

Foreign Policy is occupying a

Foreign Policy is occupying a foreign country? That's new...

Seriously, if you think no progress has been made in Afghanistan you're wrong. And if you think that a news agency shouldn't report on the specifics of the war just because it hasn't been a total success, you're deluded.

 

COUNTCHOCULA1011

6:25 AM ET

August 24, 2010

Symptomatic of a much larger problem...

...and that's intelligence itself. In such wars, intelligence counts for far more than mere body counts, and how can you really wage an effective intelligence campaign when 99.9% of your forces can barely understand the locals? Not only that, but the foe you're up against is highly advanced in tribal communications, the Taliban being one of the few governments in recent Afghan history that operated on a rural level. I think the main problem that the US is facing in this war is a failure of intelligence. The Taliban--like the Vietcong--have simply outdone us in this area.

 

MARTY MARTEL

6:48 AM ET

August 24, 2010

It is US mollycoddling of Pakistan, Stupid

US government and news media are covering up Pakistan’s duplicity by ignoring Taliban’s Pakistani connections in fueling and sustaining Afghan insurgency as reported by Matt Waldman in ‘The sun in the sky‘ on 6/13/2010, corroborated by WikiLeaks leaks on 7/25/2010 and then further corroborated by Chris Alexander, Canadian ambassador to Afghanistan from 2003 to 2005 and Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Afghanistan from 2005 until 2009 in his article on 7/30/2010 titled ‘The huge scale of Pakistan‘s complicity‘.

Even Afghanistan’s national security advisor Rangin Dadfar Spanta has asked the same question in Washington Post on 8/23/10: “While we are losing dozens of men and women to terrorist attacks every day, the terrorists’ main mentor (Pakistan) continues to receive billions of dollars in aid and assistance. How is this fundamental contradiction justified? Despite facing a growing domestic terror threat, Pakistan “continues to provide sanctuary and support to the Quetta Shura, the Haqqani network, the Hekmatyar group and Al Qaeda. Dismantling the terrorist infrastructure “requires confronting the state of Pakistan that still sees terrorism as a strategic asset and foreign policy tool”.

As Afghan President Karzai told a news conference in Kabul on 7/29/2010 after WikiLeaks leaks, “The time has come for our international allies to know that the war against terrorism is not in Afghanistan’s homes and villages. But rather this war is in the sanctuaries, funding centers and training places of terrorism which are in Pakistan. Our international allies have the ability to destroy these Pakistani sanctuaries, but the question is why they are not doing it?“

Poor Karzai’s call to his Western allies ‘to destroy Islamist militant sanctuaries in neighboring Pakistan’ is falling on deaf ears in Washington where powers to be are hell bent on sacrificing Afghanistan to mollycoddle Pakistan.

 

CAMAELJAX

9:20 AM ET

August 24, 2010

Barbarians At the Gate

This is hilarious.

With phrases, manners, and diplomacy like, "You're not understanding that I don't fucking care."

But the author contends that the problem is the translators?!?

Its perfectly obvious that the problem is the Americans...

 

FJCROW2008

11:05 AM ET

August 24, 2010

Winning them over

Yeah, that is pretty funny. He's trying to win them over and is saying "...I don't fucking care" to their concerns. And he is a captain. Somebody that is supposed to know how to *lead*. Is that the kind of leadership the Army is teaching?? He's about as diplomatic as a grenade. And... oh yeah... better "terps" is probably the answer.

 

FJCROW2008

11:14 AM ET

August 24, 2010

U.S. Mission Fall Apart

"Could the U.S. mission in Afghanistan fall apart simply because of bad translation?"

Well, if our "mission" is to win over the locals... then, yeah, maybe. If the mission is to achieve some sort of military objective... bullets and bombs don't need any translation.

And I'm still not 100% clear on exactly what "the mission" actually is. Can somebody spell that out for me. Then maybe the question would be clearer to me.

But wait... if that's how our military leadership goes about winning over the locals... then they completely suck at it and no amount of translation is going to matter.

 

SILENTSHWAN

12:13 PM ET

August 24, 2010

Multiple Issues.

1. The quality of a US Officers, NCOs, and soldiers has been declining for far too long. For every Officer/NCO you hear about that "gets" COIN you have 10 like these guys, who can't comprehend that they need to suspend their view as an American to even get a clue how Iraqi's and Afghans operate. How many times we have to explain a Shame based Society (them) Vs. a Guilt Based Society (US) only to have it travel right over the heads of an Army O-3 or O-4 is beyond me. You NEED a smarter officer, NCO, and soldier for COIN and Low Intensity Conflict, and we're only getting less and less mentally competent ones.

2. Dealing with with Interpreters is a 3-Ring Circus. You didn't even mention the differences in Categories for Terps. Most ground units receive CAT I terps, which for all intensive purposes are picked up off the streets of the host nation. CAT II and CAT III terps are screened for security clearance purposes at the very least, but even they are given quick and dirty competency tests for English. These tests are often conducted over the phone too. What's prevalent is a potential interpreter will have his/her family member take the phone test for them, and when they pass it's straight to Iraq or Afghanistan, so when this interpreter shows up his 6th grade English knowledge, he/she is not what the US paid for (which is alot). Then trying to get a replacement and firing the old one is a new stack of headaches. THEN if you catch a terp doing something dirty it's an even BIGGER stack of crap you have to deal with. L-3 knows they have the government by the gems, and the crap they pull is amazing sometimes.

3. An interpreter is only as good as how far they are integrated into the team. If you just grab the terp for a patrol and then leave him to his own devices afterwards, they have no inclination to get better or help. I've seen my fair share of lazy interpreters, who gave a crap about the mission or the U.S. and all they wanted was their fat paycheck. On the other hand I've meet a few that the only thing that stopped them from joining the Army was their age, so they felt their civic duty to interpret for U.S. forces.

We were lucky to have Dearborn, MI in the Case of Iraq. Dearborn is where a majority of Iraqi/Americans live since 1991. Many good honest men volunteered to interpret from there in 2003. Most of them are still in Iraq to this day helping U.S. Troops.

I digress, the point is, the difference between a successful interpreter and a bad one is the factor of how much does the interpreter feel they are a part of the unit. By talking to them on a daily basis during down time, getting them to read you the news every day, going to chow with them, getting cultural awareness training from them your not only reinforcing the English-to-Host Nation Language skills, your letting them know they are contributing valuable information to the team/unit and are not just a mouthpiece or a parrot. These activities also show the Cat I terps who are host nation members, that we truly care for the Host Nation, which can save your life in certain situations.

 

AARKY

12:28 PM ET

August 24, 2010

Bad Translation

The statement from the old Pogo cartoon strip applies here, "We have met the enemy, and they is us"! We now have General Petraeous running around blowing smoke about how wonderful things are and starting his PR campaign to keep us there for the next 20 years. This just to prove his theory that the Afghans will get to love us if we are there long enough.

 

IDLE CURIOSITY

1:32 PM ET

August 24, 2010

Poor Communication

It is not just Afghanistan.

Where I was in Bosnia we recruited as "interpeters" pretty much anyone with high school English and usually only just out of school. Getting extra phone lines took months longer than it should after someone translated a German officer's written expression "im auftrag" (ie on behalf of the organisation) as "by order": provoking the local PTT to decide they were not taking orders from us and ignoring the request.

 

JAYDEE001

4:02 PM ET

August 24, 2010

This would be very amusing, if not for the circumstances

Counting on an untutored interpretor to diplomatically express our f*<#ing frustration with the course of events in some Afghan village may be the least of our problems.

After 9 years and still no real signs of progress in terms of the mission we started with (oh yeah - finding OBL and Mullah Omar and driving out the Taliban) and after the same number of years of mission creep and wandering deeper into the quagmire, finally changing commanders, and lately 'Obama's surge' , etc., who gives a flying 'f' if our personnel cannot communicate with tribal elders who are still living in the 14th century. You would have thought that one of our brilliant leaders would have picked up a history book on Afghanistan and studied at least the history since the USSR broke their wallets and their union there. They could have also consulted experts on the tribal culture of the country and its demographics as well as the geography before deciding whether we had a snoball's chance in hades of 'victory' - whatever the 'f' that means.

 

IRONCAPT

2:29 PM ET

August 25, 2010

One thing...

"Terps have a different stake from the Americans in the outcome of the war..."

Indeed. After Mullah Omar's latest edict about how to treat collaborators and the horrid difficulty that some of our Iraqi terps had getting visas, I wonder if they do not have a greater stake in the outcome of the war than we do. If we fail in Afghanistan, I don't see the Taliban coming to my house in Kansas and doing unspeakably horrible things to my family as a result.

I agree that some terps suck. And some troops don't know how to use them. But some of those terps are the bravest folks I know.

 

JACKDALE

5:05 AM ET

August 27, 2010

Why

Like everything, this war was born out of confusion and with confusion there will be miscommunication. One of the hardest part of translation, will be of course, getting the unsaid, said. The words that there are no literal translation for and the local customs that you just cannot put into words.

I was at gatwick airport parking my car one day went a little boy tried to ask me for direction. What happened, well lets say I mis-interpreted What he was saying and it ended terribly

 

HERMES BIRKIN

10:49 PM ET

September 9, 2010

hermes-kelly

birkin-handbag

 

GLUCOMT

4:37 AM ET

September 17, 2010

Dexter Filkins of The New

Dexter Filkins of The New York Times records similar matters from Iraq, and includes in one book an incident in which an interpreter completes his duty between an American officer and a local and then, as the officer leaves the room, laments out loud that he wishes these damn foreigners would just plain go home. The implication is that the interpreter knew the journalist isn't a soldier, and would sympathize with his lament.

Locals who have some clear idea of how the Americans work -- that is, educated locals with a broad understanding of foreign cultures and their own -- would be little attracted to interpreter employmentk. They know it can make them assassination targets, and they know the Americans won't do all that much to protect them.
HGH

 

DANIELLA

1:19 PM ET

September 21, 2010

Lost in translation

Remember the party game Charades? If they can't understand the language, I'm sure we could act it out by packing all of our shit? up and leaving. I bet we won't need to spend (probably) millions on translators for that message to be heard correctly. Some things don't need to be said to be understood.
It doesn't matter what translators they have, they could be geniuses, and yet US will fail, because there is a galaxy of a gap in cultures. Besides,? who wants to listen to occupiers live tv. They simply won't understand each other, with translators or without. US should stop trying to find a bet scapegoat for their failures.