Lost in Translation? - How Military Might Can't Win in Afghanistan

By Fae MacArthur Clark
Photo is a work of the US Federal Government

We've been hearing for ages that translators are thin on the ground in the key areas of conflict in which the US is engaged. What we haven't been hearing much about is how this shortage of available translators opens the doors for candidates with less than adequate fluency in the languages in question. Recently, however, allegations that faulty translations of prisoner statements by Canadian military translators have led to false accusations of Taliban involvement have come hand in hand with similar worries about US military translators.

So, the translation question is back on the table. But what's the military supposed to do about it? It's not like the US has an abundance of Pashto and Dari speaking citizens just waiting to heed the call of the military. The only significant source of people speaking Afghan dialects that we have access to is Afghanis and, if Iraq is any indicator, the US military doesn't do such a great job of working together with locals on the ground.

Even if the US military could muster together a significant supply of Afghan translators in its employ, learn to trust them, develop their trust, and really learn to utilize their knowledge of Afghani language and culture, they would still represent, at best, a very small part of the US military presence. The vast majority of US soldiers would still face insurmountable difficulties in communicating with the Aghanis they are supposed to protect. Furthermore, the language barrier makes the oft-trumpeted "winning hearts and minds" a virtual impossibility. Just ask Air Force Maj. John Loftis, one of the rare Pashto speaking US troops in southern Afghanistan, speaking the language certainly helps smooth out the rough edges inherent in trying to ensure security.

This is something which isn't so frequently put into the context of the argument about US troop involvement in Afghanistan. On the one hand, US troops are certainly superior to their Afghan counterparts in terms of training and equipment. On the other, Afghan troops know the language, culture, and history of the country they're fighting for and have a personal investment in its success. The debates over how many troops for how long seem to dominate the discussion in the US and yet the miriad of other questions, each of undeniable importance to the future of Afghanistan, are largely pushed to the background. Talk of the Afghani military replacing US troops are presented as a way to get US troops out, even if this is at the cost of stability in the region, rather than a necessary move towards that same stability.

In the mean time, 40 or 20 thousand more troops may not be the central question the Obama administration faces. Both the US and Afghani militaries need more training and while that training is underway they need to utilize the fact that their strengths are complimentary.