A decade of war has reinforced to the U.S. Army the importance of cultural awareness. Senior flag officers and junior enlisted men and women have all heard presentations about Islam, and basic elements of Iraqi and Afghan culture. True, discussing the confluence of theology and terrorism remains largely taboo in the politically correct U.S. military, but few troops deploy without knowing basic information about Islam and cultural sensitivities. The notable exception was Gen. Janis Karpinski, whose unit embarrassed the United States at Abu Ghraib; she dismissed cultural awareness as below her and irrelevant to her mission.
Foreign language acquisition remains a problem. Paul Wolfowitz deserves credit when deputy secretary of defense for focusing military attention not only on cultural awareness, but also on the poor state of language acquisition among American servicemen. When I work in Germany, or among Bosnian, Romanian, or Polish troops, there are few that do not speak fluently a second language; few American servicemen do, however, except for many Hispanic soldiers or those from elsewhere who are first-generation immigrants. In recent years, the situation has improved, but only slightly. Senior officers will be the first to admit that the Army and the Marines still have a long way to go.
Some of the criticism directed toward the U.S. military for alleged cultural mishaps has been unwarranted. For example, many (not all) of the allegations that American male troops patted down and searched Iraqi women were false: When troops wear full battle rattle, it’s hard to tell males from females and so Iraqis—and some American journalists—just got carried away with assumptions. Criticism about American raids on mosques was also often unwarranted. Rather than simply treat mosques as inviolate sacred space off-limits to American forces, critics of American raids would be far better off questioning why some mosques became safe havens for terrorists or storage depots for weapons. When push comes to shove, force protection of American troops must always come first.
In Afghanistan, the U.S. military has assembled all-female engagement teams to meet and work with Afghan women who oppose the Taliban but whose culture and religious practice would not allow them to interact with any unit which incorporated males.
The cultural mishaps which have occurred—burning the Quran at Bagram, for example—are inexcusable and they were punished promptly. Still, they are exceptions, and rare ones at that. Likewise, abusing the bodies of Taliban fighters was an empty crisis: Americans seemed more outraged than Afghans. There is no evidence that any sought revenge because of the behavior of the few troops who desecrated Taliban bodies.
Still, there is one major problem which no level of the Army or Pentagon appears ready to address: foul language. It would sound like a silly complaint if it was not so corrosive to our mission and responsible at times for kinetic backlash. Especially among younger troops and out-in-the-field, every tenth word seems to be “sh-t” or especially creative constructions revolving around “f-ck.” Afghans may not understand English and even those that do will have a poor grasp of idiom, but all understand foul language. While not all “Green on Blue” violence is the result of cultural affront, some is. Likewise, I recently heard of a case in eastern Afghanistan where, watching women carrying heavy loads in the fields, one American soldier exclaimed, “Will you look at how much those f-cking women can carry!” Three days later, tribal leaders lodged a protest complaining that Americans had suggested that Afghan women working in the fields were sexually loose. In certain societies, honor matters. Americans are not the only guilty party. The Canadians had an incident in Somalia two decades ago in which a similar young private exclaimed to a Somali standing guard duty with him outside a meeting, “Boy is your sheikh pig-headed.” The young Somali understood two words: “Sheikh” and “Pig” and four Canadians died over the next couple days because of the misunderstanding.
Before his retirement from the military, Gen. David Petraeus often spoke about how every soldier was also a diplomat. He was right. Few American diplomats emerge anymore from behind the blast walls which fence in American embassies in trouble spots, and so the face of the United States is the soldier. While we might be the strongest country on earth, we are still guests in the countries in which our troops deploy, and so it is imperative to act as guests instead of occupiers. There are few employers in the United States who would let employees interacting with the public swear non-stop.
Now, don’t get me wrong: Political correctness is nonsense, but this isn’t about political correctness. Not only do we pay consequences in our battle to win hearts and minds, but so long as the military also serves as important job training for those entering at the lowest ranks, it does a disservice by tolerating this lack of professionalism. It may be an uphill battle and, admittedly, there are greater battles which must be won. Language may be a detail, but we ignore such details are our peril.
This is perhaps the most unnecessary post to Contentions that I've seen, and I've been reading the blog since it started. Our military men and women are put in conditions that we in the states cannot understand, much less sympathize with. They are put in harm's way to protect a population that hates them and their Western ideals. They are far from home, far from loved ones and often far from even a shower for goodness sake. n nOur military risk their lives to protect us where we can sit comfortably at home, watching television, drinking gourmet coffee, and with time to comment on the inanities of Mr. Rubin. It would be great if our service men and women didn't curse and could somehow manage between their training in weapons, tactics, and military procedures, to have time to learn a foreign language. Sure, that'd be just dandy. (While they are busy learning how to fire weapons and drive armored personnel carriers maybe they can take a course at Yale.) n nThe reality is that our military is put into situations where they are in constant and real danger. They are fighting in a most inhospitable place (if you haven't been to Afghanistan take a Google Earth fly-through on your computer to see just rugged the terrain is). Then you should also realize that the summer temps are above 100-degrees with winter temperatures below zero. And if that's not enough, note that the Army now has special tourniquets that each soldier carries so that he can stave off blood flow from a decimated limb that result from the many IEDs in the country. n nTo this work environment, Mr. Rubin takes these brave men and women to task for their sometimes rough language. Get real already. These people are doing more than the rest of us and we here would do well to recognize their sacrifice and give them the honor and support they have earned.
Quit treating the military like it’s a conglomerate of diplomats and this wouldn’t be a problem. Also, go f**k yourself.
The 1924 play "What Price Glory" about Marines during the World War, was condemned by some for its free use of profanity. In their introduction to the play, playwrights Maxwell Anderson and Laurence Stallingsir warned that they had included the "oaths" to help make the play realistic, noting (if memory serves — it's been quite a few years) that "Oaths mean nothing to a soldier." nIf anything, profanity has become more accepted, not less, in the nearly 100 years since that war. n nThe only way you are going to impress your point on our combat troops is to have some non-com drill into them that it is f–g stupid and irresf–gsponsible to get your f–g head blown off and your whole f–g unit killed because you can't control your f–g mouth.
I understand why THIS author would try to pin on General Karpinski that which is the fault of NeoConservativism more generally, any mention of abu Ghraib ought to include a reference to Geoffrey L. Miller, shouldn't it ? nI understand the attempt to exonerate or rehabilitate Mr. Wolfowicz. n nBut I need help understanding how the Storm Troopers of a brutal occupation could "act as guests instead of occupiers." nIt's not so much the curses and crudeness that offend the local Pashtuns, it's the killings, rapes, abductions and destruction. n nI'm a former Infantry Officer; I understand what soldiers do, and what an army is. A foreign army in a foreign land is a constant source of irritation. Resistance is the normal response.
My military training was during Vietnam, and political correctness had not yet infected the military. Likewise, "nation building" was something the Peace Corps weenies did. Cultural sensitivity was simply not even a concept. n nOur job, we were told, was to project force sufficient to deter, and, if need be, defeat our enemies. Period. n nAnd, Mr Rubin may be young and have tender ears, but I'd bet large that my Navy back 40 years ago was at least as foul-mouthed as today's Marines and Army troopers.
In my dad's time a standing philosophy was that the enlisted troopers should never interact with civilians. Wherever troops moved, at home or abroad, civilians were asked to stay away as well; no friendly ladies or street urchins begging for stuff and all that nonsense. That makes sense, as this is far safer for both sides. A regular soldier should not be a diplomat, a Care Bear, anthropologist, linguist and social worker all in one, forced to interact with people he may find repugnant under the stress of combat. If it is necessaty to practice diplomacy with locals, the job should be up to civilian specialists or officers trained in PR.
American soldiers used the same foul language during the occupations of Germany and Austria. I never heard of any incidents over that in all the literature I've read about postwar Europe and American troops. Sorry, but I don't credit the complaints of Moselms over this either. To me they're just using this as a excuse for murder of Americans. n nF–k 'em!
Thanks Mike for bringing this up. Its not just about words, its about culture. Green-on-blue incidents have killed a lot of servicemen unnecessarily. If you dont understand the culture you dont understand the enemy or your friends. If you dont understand the human terrain you cant fight the battle or the war. We dont talk about cultural differences in our own military or country; we paper over them with unity and equality and expect the world to be the same. We do this at our own peril.
My first experience with a request for soldiers to tone down the bad language came at the National Training Center in Ft. Irwin, CA. They had set up a mock village and it was staffed by folks of Iraqi extraction. The guy playing the police chief was Iraqi-American and, gesturing to some soldiers from another unit who were walking around, asked me "Why they use so much the f-cky-f-cky?" I don't know if he brought it up because the training organizers told him to be on the look-out for it or if he honestly felt it was an issue of concern. Anyway, I made it a point not to curse around the Iraqis I dealt with during my two trips there. Most of them were Iraqis who were contracted to work for US forces, as I wasn't doing much patrolling, but at the end of the day I felt it was a good policy. I think the author raises a legitimate concern.
It's a god-damned shame that the Afghans don't show US some of the same cultural sensitivity that they demand, and use as an excuse for their sneaky tactics and outright murder. We are long overdue to pull out of there, and every other third-world toilet.