QuoteMany translators unfit in any language
By JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press
NAWA, Afghanistan – Josh Habib lay in a dirt field, gasping for air. Two days of hiking with Marines through southern Afghanistan's 115-degree heat had exhausted him. This was not what he signed up for.Habib is not a Marine. He is a 53-year-old engineer from California hired by a contracting company as a military translator. When he applied for the lucrative linguist job, Habib said his recruiter gave no hint he would join a ground assault in Taliban land. He carried 40 pounds of food, water and gear on his back, and kept pace — barely — with Marines half his age.
U.S. troops say companies that recruit military translators are sending linguists to southern Afghanistan who are unprepared to serve in combat, even as hundreds more are needed to support the growing number of troops.
Some translators are in their 60s and 70s and in poor physical condition — and some don't even speak the right language."I've met guys off the planes and have immediately sent them back because they weren't in the proper physical shape," said Gunnery Sgt. James Spangler, who is in charge of linguists at Camp Leatherneck, the largest U.S. base in Helmand province.
"They were too old. They couldn't breathe. They complained about heart problems," he said. "We almost made a joke of it. We're almost receiving people on oxygen tanks and colostomy bags; it's almost getting to that point."
And that's not the worst of it.
Troops say low-skilled and disgruntled translators are putting U.S. forces at risk.
"Intelligence can save Marines' lives and give us the advantage on the battlefield," said Cpl. William Woodall, 26, of Dallas, who works closely with translators. "Instead of looking for quality, the companies are just pushing bodies out here, and once they're out the door, it's not their problem anymore."
Spangler, 36, of Lecanto, Fla., emphasized that translators need to be physically fit.
"When we have convoys that are out days or weeks at a time and you have someone that's 60 or 70 years old, I have to put the directive in: I need someone younger, can get out of a vehicle quickly, can run for short periods if needed, anything that's required for combat operations with Marines," Spangler said.
The company that recruits most U.S. citizen translators, Columbus, Ohio-based Mission Essential Personnel, says it's difficult to meet the increased demand for linguists to aid the 15,000 U.S. forces being sent to southern, Pashto-speaking provinces this year as part of President Barack Obama's increased focus on Afghanistan. Only 7,700 Pashto speakers live in the U.S., according to the 2000 census.Mission Essential's senior vice president, Marc Peltier, told The Associated Press that the linguists the company deploys to Afghanistan, Iraq and other countries meet government standards. The military sets no age or weight requirements, he said.
"I really wish everyone we send over was a 21-year-old who can pass the Marine Corps physical fitness exam. They're not," said Peltier.
"It's been a shock to some of them. You can't really acclimate them. We don't have centers to run scenarios out in the heat. It is a surprise to many of them and it's very, very hard work, especially with a lot of the new Marines that are going into Helmand province," he said.
How translators come to believe they won't face danger could originate with recruiters.
"They're going to tell you whatever it is to get you hired," Spangler said.
Khalid Nazary, an Afghan-American citizen living in Kabul, called Mission Essential about a job and let an AP reporter listen.
He asked if he would go to "dangerous places."
"Oh, no, no, no. You're not a soldier. You're not a soldier. Not at all," the recruiter, Tekelia Barnett, said. "You're not on the battlefield."
The Afghan-American asked repeatedly if he would be sent on battlefield missions. Barnett said he would translate for soldiers at schools, mosques or hospitals. After being pressed on the point, Barnett said the linguist would be subject to "any" assignment, and if he didn't want the task he could quit.
Peltier later told AP it was indeed possible that translators would be on the battlefield. He said he would talk to Barnett to make sure she made that more clear. Peltier also said the first phone call was "introductory" and that recruits go through two weeks of training "and get a very clear picture of what they're going to do."
Others disagreed.
"They say you'll get a shower once a day, have access to Internet and TV, call home six times a week," Woodall said. "And when the guys get out, they're completely shell-shocked. They've been lied to."
Habib, the translator who spoke to the AP while carrying a heavy pack in the stifling heat, said a Mission Essential recruiter originally told him that if he passed his language test, he would work out of the main U.S. base at Bagram about 30 miles north of the Afghan capital, Kabul.
"That's what she promised me over the phone. That was attractive to me, and it was safe," Habib said.
Once in Afghanistan, he says he was told he would lose his job if he didn't go with the Marines to Helmand.
"It's been very hard, very hard, physically," said Habib, a Pashto-speaking U.S. citizen born in Pakistan who says he signed up because he wanted to serve his country.
Troops and translators say they suspect recruiting companies try to send as many interpreters as possible to Afghanistan to collect fees.
Millions of dollars are involved. Known as Category II translators — U.S. citizens who obtain a security clearance — such linguists earn a salary that starts at $210,000 a year.
Mission Essential Personnel recruits and hires most Category II linguists in Afghanistan. Peltier said the company was founded by two former Army Special Forces reservists who sought to improve the quality of translators after seeing them "pushed out the door and being mistreated."
The military gave Mission Essential performance bonuses in each quarter last year, Peltier said. When the company took over the Afghanistan language contract in late 2007, only 41 percent of linguists' jobs were filled. Today 97 percent of the jobs are taken, he said.
At Camp Leatherneck, four U.S.-citizen interpreters spoke with AP but none gave his name for fear of losing his job.
The translators said dozens of linguists quit soon after arriving in Afghanistan in recent weeks. Spangler declined to provide numbers but said "quite a bit" resigned or were fired because they were too old, unfit or couldn't speak Pashto.
Army Sgt. Will Gamez, 26, of Los Angeles, said he recently worked with a linguist who spoke only the Afghan language of Dari, instead of Pashto.
One translator alleged that most of his colleagues cannot speak Pashto, and that some recruits in the U.S. were bypassing the language test administered for Mission Essential by having a skilled Pashto speaker take it over the phone. The company does not require the initial test be taken in person but later gives in-person tests.
Spangler said the military is working its way through dozens of newly arrived interpreters and that the system will weed out the weaker ones by September.
But Gamez said soldiers need translators now, and that some feign sickness to avoid work.
"If he doesn't go out, I can't do my job," Gamez said. "If locals come up to us, we can't tell what they're saying. They might be warning us about a minefield. They might be warning us about an ambush."
Katmai? Is that you? :o
Quote
"They say you'll get a shower once a day, have access to Internet and TV, call home six times a week,"
No Tivo!? :mad:
Heh. Austrian police are having problems filling their ranks with fresh blood, too, because many applicants fail the German tests (which goes right with the perception of Austrian police here).
Better a translator that can't do his job properly than one that fucks guys. :cool:
Quote from: Martinus on July 23, 2009, 01:10:38 AM
Better a translator that can't do his job properly than one that fucks guys. :cool:
:cool:
Quote from: Martinus on July 23, 2009, 01:10:38 AM
Better a translator that can't do his job properly than one that fucks guys. :cool:
Heh. You know if you think about it, the army translaters could take this job, get paid a very large amount of cash, and still be serving their country.
The US has been in Afghanistan and Iraq for many years. Surely they have trained a lot of 21 yo fit translators?
Quote from: Martinus on July 23, 2009, 01:10:38 AM
Better a translator that can't do his job properly than one that fucks guys. :cool:
Indeed. Homosexuals are unreliable, and would betray the US to the terrorists and a moment's notice.
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2009, 03:49:51 AM
The US has been in Afghanistan and Iraq for many years. Surely they have trained a lot of 21 yo fit translators?
Of course not. Smart people who are capable of learning new languages don't sign up for the Army. And why would real translators want to join the Army anyways?
US military recruiters are evil. Film at 10.
Wouldn't it be best to train the more intelligent of the recruits to be translators? I recall hearing back during national service days huge loads of people were trained in Russian.
They usually join the Chair Force
*points at Tonitrus*
AnchorClanker is in good enough shape to serve as a translator on the front lines, it's just whether they can get him out of his smoking jacket and put down the hooka pipe and his copy of Byron to get any work done.
Looks like someone needs to lay down some law on the companies doing the recruiting. Make sure they get the people that fit the requirements, and also are honest to the prospective translators.
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:42:36 AM
US military recruiters are evil. Film at 10.
Read much?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2009, 02:06:24 AM
Quote from: Martinus on July 23, 2009, 01:10:38 AM
Better a translator that can't do his job properly than one that fucks guys. :cool:
Heh. You know if you think about it, the army translaters could take this job, get paid a very large amount of cash, and still be serving their country.
No kidding. If you're stuck as a translator in Afghanistan, why not let the Marines in on your secret life, apply to this company, and go from $25k to $210k--doing the same job without the military BS? Maybe that is why it seems like everyone getting booted out for DADT is a translator.
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:29:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:42:36 AM
US military recruiters are evil. Film at 10.
Read much?
:unsure:
Why?
Has there been a big thing in the American papers about this or something?
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 11:26:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:29:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:42:36 AM
US military recruiters are evil. Film at 10.
Read much?
:unsure:
Why?
Has there been a big thing in the American papers about this or something?
No I was just wondering how you managed to conclude that these were military recruiters, when the article made it rather clear they were a private company.
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 06:39:09 AMOf course not. Smart people who are capable of learning new languages don't sign up for the Army.
I fuzzily remember a thread on the old Languish where someone (Berkut?) claimed that US servicemen are of above average intelligence. My memory may be wrong though.
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 06:39:09 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2009, 03:49:51 AM
The US has been in Afghanistan and Iraq for many years. Surely they have trained a lot of 21 yo fit translators?
Of course not. Smart people who are capable of learning new languages don't sign up for the Army. And why would real translators want to join the Army anyways?
I'm smart, I speak 3 and 1/2 languages, and I joined the Army.
Stop stereotyping.
Quote from: Zanza on July 23, 2009, 11:48:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 06:39:09 AMOf course not. Smart people who are capable of learning new languages don't sign up for the Army.
I fuzzily remember a thread on the old Languish where someone (Berkut?) claimed that US servicemen are of above average intelligence. My memory may be wrong though.
No, I simply said that they were not a bunch of morons as Marty asserts regularly.
I think the DoD reports state that their enlisted recruits tend to be at or slightly above national averages for intelligence - which makes sense since they weed out those who cannot pass an ASVAB test and qualify in the higher classifications.
Dod report:
The DoD categorizes recruits using five levels Leve 1 being the high end, level 5 the low end.
They do not take anyone from level V, and are only allowed to take 4% of their recruits from those in level IV, but actually only take around 1%.
According to their stats, 39% of their recruits are Level 1 & Level 2, compared to 35% of the general population. 60% of their recruits are Level 3, compared to 34% of the population, and 1% is Level 4, compared to 21% in the general population. They have no Level 5s, compared to the general population being 10%.
So basically all enlisted soldiers are in the top 70% of the general population.
So if they have enough Level 1 and 2 people, it's just a failure of their skills management, namely not educating enough of their soldiers in important foreign languages?
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 11:43:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 11:26:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:29:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:42:36 AM
US military recruiters are evil. Film at 10.
Read much?
:unsure:
Why?
Has there been a big thing in the American papers about this or something?
No I was just wondering how you managed to conclude that these were military recruiters, when the article made it rather clear they were a private company.
Recruiting for the US military.....
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 01:45:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 11:43:07 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 11:26:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 08:29:39 AM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 06:42:36 AM
US military recruiters are evil. Film at 10.
Read much?
:unsure:
Why?
Has there been a big thing in the American papers about this or something?
No I was just wondering how you managed to conclude that these were military recruiters, when the article made it rather clear they were a private company.
Recruiting for the US military.....
So it is well known that companies that recruit people to work for the US military are evil?
I assume that includes the hundreds of companies that provide services for the US military, like running the cafeteria or PX?
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 11:59:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 06:39:09 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2009, 03:49:51 AM
The US has been in Afghanistan and Iraq for many years. Surely they have trained a lot of 21 yo fit translators?
Of course not. Smart people who are capable of learning new languages don't sign up for the Army. And why would real translators want to join the Army anyways?
I'm smart, I speak 3 and 1/2 languages, and I joined the Army.
Stop stereotyping.
What half language do you speak?
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 01:50:56 PM
So it is well known that companies that recruit people to work for the US military are evil?
I assume that includes the hundreds of companies that provide services for the US military, like running the cafeteria or PX?
I don't know. How do they recruit people?
Do they follow this spleel of insisting you're going nowhere near action then going back on it or are they completely up front?
My comment came about because recruiters for actual US military positions are known to have a reputation for such stuff as well.
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 03:18:37 PM
spleel
6 million dead Jews = no bagels, bad Yiddish. :(
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 23, 2009, 04:53:40 PM
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 03:18:37 PM
spleel
6 million dead Jews = no bagels, bad Yiddish. :(
:lol:
At least he's trying; don't be such a pootz.
Quote from: Zanza on July 23, 2009, 01:25:40 PM
So if they have enough Level 1 and 2 people, it's just a failure of their skills management, namely not educating enough of their soldiers in important foreign languages?
I doubt it makes that much sense to bring in a bunch of 18 year olds with various levels of enthusiasm, teach them to be soldiers, and then teach them a foriegn language. By the time they are done learning their service period will be half over.
It is probably more cost effective to just shell out big bucks for people that already know the language.
Not sure "raw" intelligence has anything to do with learning languages.
Back at school, I knew very smart people who struggled, and some very dumb kids who could pick up a language with no problem.
Quote from: Siege on July 23, 2009, 11:59:35 AM
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2009, 06:39:09 AM
Quote from: The Brain on July 23, 2009, 03:49:51 AM
The US has been in Afghanistan and Iraq for many years. Surely they have trained a lot of 21 yo fit translators?
Of course not. Smart people who are capable of learning new languages don't sign up for the Army. And why would real translators want to join the Army anyways?
I'm smart, I speak 3 and 1/2 languages, and I joined the Army.
Stop stereotyping.
You're not smart, and Hebrew isn't a real language.
Quote from: Tonitrus on July 23, 2009, 06:32:26 PM
Not sure "raw" intelligence has anything to do with learning languages.
Back at school, I knew very smart people who struggled, and some very dumb kids who could pick up a language with no problem.
Yeah, language learning is quite different to other learning.
With languages it really is a case of just needing to put in the time. Just see those countries where practically everyone speaks two or three languages.
Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2009, 03:18:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 23, 2009, 01:50:56 PM
So it is well known that companies that recruit people to work for the US military are evil?
I assume that includes the hundreds of companies that provide services for the US military, like running the cafeteria or PX?
I don't know. How do they recruit people?
Do they follow this spleel of insisting you're going nowhere near action then going back on it or are they completely up front?
My comment came about because recruiters for actual US military positions are known to have a reputation for such stuff as well.
I am asking you - you are the one who claims that there is some well known repuattion for such things. Personally, this is the first time I have ever heard of it, so I would like to have the some sources of such "well known" examples that you have.
Since there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of companies that hire people to do work for the military, I am guessing that there must be a similarly large number of examples of these companies and their evil recruiting practices...right? Presumably, I could just pick any one at random and have a pretty good chance that they are evil...
Quote from: alfred russel on July 23, 2009, 06:12:52 PM
Quote from: Zanza on July 23, 2009, 01:25:40 PM
So if they have enough Level 1 and 2 people, it's just a failure of their skills management, namely not educating enough of their soldiers in important foreign languages?
I doubt it makes that much sense to bring in a bunch of 18 year olds with various levels of enthusiasm, teach them to be soldiers, and then teach them a foriegn language. By the time they are done learning their service period will be half over.
It is probably more cost effective to just shell out big bucks for people that already know the language.
I imagine it is both - and something as specific as a foreign language is rather hard to justify teaching a recruit, although it almost certainly happens.
My father spent his time in Vietnam flying around in a small plane listening in on NVA radio comms. He did not know Vietnamese before he went in, but got sent to the Presidio for 6 months to learn. Although I guess the amount you need to know to do what he did is vastly less than knowing enough to go communicate in a face to face discussion with Pashtun tribal leaders or whatever.
Seems like we will have a need for Afghan language skills for a long time though.
Quote from: Berkut on July 24, 2009, 11:33:13 AM
I am asking you - you are the one who claims that there is some well known repuattion for such things. Personally, this is the first time I have ever heard of it, so I would like to have the some sources of such "well known" examples that you have.
Since there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of companies that hire people to do work for the military, I am guessing that there must be a similarly large number of examples of these companies and their evil recruiting practices...right? Presumably, I could just pick any one at random and have a pretty good chance that they are evil...
:rolleyes: