Well, you know, most Americans who speak Arabic are far too suspect to ever get the security clearance to end up in the Baghdad embassy. Those 6 might be a majority of the fluent Arabic speakers who pass.

Yes, indeed I have been told that many times by friends formerly in Agency and the like.

The Americans have set up a stunningly self-defeating program for themselves. Risk averse to the point of sheer idiocy, but risk taking in blind ignorance.

bush basically has the final word on whether the US follows anything in the report or not and we all know he's cocky, egotistical and useless.

L.: why should the US' lack of Arabic-speakers in the Baghdad Embassy be a "surprise"? Shockingly lame, of course: but it should only be expected: Americans are notoriously monolingual, and as neocolonialist conquerors liberators, the notion that "everyone should speak English" is only normal. Arrogant, incompetent and self-defeating (like virtually everything connected with the occupation of Iraq) - but normal.

I get the feeling that lack of fluency in Arabic isn't just limited to US diplomats in Baghdad. It'd be interesting to know just how many of the American journalists and academics that specialise in the region are actually fully conversant in the language. I don't think the results would be too inspiring.

The problem here is that fluency in Arabic doesn't come in a box. It takes a minimum of two years--and actually three--of intensive instruction to learn to speak at a near-university-educated level.

So, if the USG had started a mandatory crash course in Arabic in March, 2003, the first graduates of the program would be coming on line now.

Of course, the USG didn't start a mandatory program. It only encouraged people to take up the language and sought to find native speakers. State, unlike the FBI, isn't Gay-adverse, but there're only a limited number of takers.

After all, what do you get if you put in the time, effort, and lost-opportunities to study Arabic? An assured assignment in Iraq! Oh, Boy! The queues ran around the block, as you can imagine.

I suppose of the USG were truly fascistic it could ban all language studies other than Arabic in universities. It could start to conscript Arabic speakers.

Even providing incentives--like 10% or 15% pay increases--didn't result in the multitudes lining up to learn Arabic. Maybe a 50% incentive would do it, if one could get it through a tightfisted Congress.

Dear John,

with all due respect, & I truly do respect what you and others did & do at State, it's not like in 2003 the U.S. has discovered that - SURPRISE! - there is such a thing as the Arabic-speaking world and that it may just be important a wee bit.

Your argument of a "tightfisted Congress" doesn't hold, either, as the sums APPROVED by it for anti-terror and Iraq War expenditures as so massively huge that even a tiny fraction of it could've easily funded a massive Arabic/Pashto/Persian language program.

One of the big mistakes of the U.S. administrations during the late 80s and 90s was not to push for more Arabic/etc. language funding and training. The story of overvaluing cool new technology over human resources has been told over and over again, so no need to repeat it here.

And even when it comes to the question of who'd want to be posted in Iraq, there are a LOT of young Americans and others, recent college graduates and even recent grad school graduates who would actually eagerly go to Iraq and other places in the MidEast in order to, you know, "make a difference" and be in the field, and "help make the world a better place", or just have a decent job in the field and languages they've studied.

From my own experience among Middle East studies grad students in the late 90s, I can say that the biggest detraction against joining gov't institutions was that it got harder to enter for people who'd lived & traveled in "weird" countries and also that examples from within made it look like those who didn't follow what we thought was a patently misguided and dangerous policy towards the MidEast would have a hard time and have their concerns completely ignored.

--MSK

Your argument of a "tightfisted Congress" doesn't hold, either, as the sums APPROVED by it for anti-terror and Iraq War expenditures as so massively huge that even a tiny fraction of it could've easily funded a massive Arabic/Pashto/Persian language program.

Yes, but obviously Congress had different priorities (think of the interests/lobbies involved, HR capacity building for State does not stack up well against Pentagon/defense spending). Language training is a slow process and the return is harder to measure. And since Arabic is a pain in the ass language to learn, the incentives have to match the effort invested for mastery (4-5 years of courses and/or immersion is a lot of work).

One of the big mistakes of the U.S. administrations during the late 80s and 90s was not to push for more Arabic/etc. language funding and training.

Well, hindsight is 20/20. Hard to justify a critical need for something beyond a 4-year planning horizon (election cycle), with indeterminate benefits. At any given time there are thousands of competing interests and priorities.

there are a LOT of young Americans and others...who would actually eagerly go to Iraq and other places in the MidEast

Relative to those who want to do a stint in Europe, Asia, etc? I wouldn't go to Iraq if the USG paid me half a million dollars. I think John may be right in suggesting that Iraq isn't exactly a plum posting right now.

In any case, building up arcane skillsets in an organization (particularly when clearance procedures border on anal-retentive) is a slow, painful process.

Dear e,

the money that DID get approved by congress was not so rigidly tied to specific issues that more of it couldn't have been used for language training.

As for the 80s & 90s - there's no hindsight involved. At the time the Middle East specialist across the board, regardless of political affiliation, bemoaned the fact that there was not enough language training, that not enough foreign service employees abroad spoke the relevant languages, etc.

But yes, of course you're right about the internal machinations and how all that works.

As for people going to Iraq - well, not in 2006. But 2003 was a different ballgame.

--MSK

Burgess:

The problem here is that fluency in Arabic doesn't come in a box. It takes a minimum of two years--and actually three--of intensive instruction to learn to speak at a near-university-educated level.

Indeed, I know. I'd even say that it takes 5 years for a non-native speaker to get up to something approaching professionally utility.

I did that, after all.

In private sector, mind you, not in government service.

So, if the USG had started a mandatory crash course in Arabic in March, 2003, the first graduates of the program would be coming on line now.

Well, one might reasonably have expected a crash course starting - shall we say 2 years earlier? Given certain events and the banging on about the importance of such.

Of course, the USG didn't start a mandatory program. It only encouraged people to take up the language and sought to find native speakers. State, unlike the FBI, isn't Gay-adverse, but there're only a limited number of takers.

Reasonable, but the question remains, in grosso modo why has the US preparation in this area been so inadequate? It clearly has. What are the real drivers of inadequacy and what can you do to address them (other than making excuses).

After all, what do you get if you put in the time, effort, and lost-opportunities to study Arabic? An assured assignment in Iraq! Oh, Boy! The queues ran around the block, as you can imagine.

True, very true.

A good friend of mine, former USG person who I met in MENA when he was studying Arabic (in Yemen of all places, a ludicrously insane choice in my mind, although he was of Mediterranean - Carib extraction such that he blended well) indicated to me (on leaving the USG for private sector) he and his supervisor hid his Arabic on his diplo secundment to avoid losing him to Iraq.

I suppose of the USG were truly fascistic it could ban all language studies other than Arabic in universities. It could start to conscript Arabic speakers.

Please spare me idiocies and cheap straw men.

Even providing incentives--like 10% or 15% pay increases--didn't result in the multitudes lining up to learn Arabic. Maybe a 50% incentive would do it, if one could get it through a tightfisted Congress.

Well, such ideas are something Americans might well be served to discuss seriously.

Incentives. I find they often work if they are well-conceived.

MSK

From my own experience among Middle East studies grad students in the late 90s, I can say that the biggest detraction against joining gov't institutions was that it got harder to enter for people who'd lived & traveled in "weird" countries and also that examples from within made it look like those who didn't follow what we thought was a patently misguided and dangerous policy towards the MidEast would have a hard time and have their concerns completely ignored.
Indeed, I have often heard the same thing.

And eerie's post also.

What I was getting at was real incentives.

Burgess might be better served than lecuring me of all people with respect to Arabic, posing reflexions on how to change the real incentives.

Or the Americans can continue playing a losing hand.

Dear L,

I have actually advised my students & others to go to Yemen for Arabic studies, as it's one of the few "total immersion" countries left, now that Damascus is ... errr ... crawling with foreigners.

And judging from feedback, Yemen isn't too bad for whiteys, incl. US-Americans.

--MSK

I think it goes both ways. A white guy I know was begged (almost) by State to consider a career because of mere Arabic familiarity and some region experience, but despite passing both parts of Foreign Service exam, he was turned off fundamentally by not feeling able to support US policy even dishonestly with a straight face anymore.

Personal issues might have otherwise blocked his appointment, but Arabic familiarity was a desperately sought trait. Others I know who have had suspect contacts and experience and language knowledge in their past have entered or survived in the State Department. Nowadays hoever it is getting to the point that persons who are culture/region- knowledgable have lost what slim line of benefit of doubt in the US government regional policy that they once had.

"I suppose of the USG were truly fascistic it could ban all language studies other than Arabic in universities. It could start to conscript Arabic speakers"

Without carrying it to such extremes, the USG *did* start to pressure schools receiving its grants for Arabic language and Middle East studies to make their curricula and research more policy-relevant - I'm not sure where that has gone. Can't imagine academics taking too well to government bullying, though, especially when the rather understandable and well-intentioned goal of producing young Americans knowledgeable enough to contribute to policy-making about the Middle East has got hijacked by nutters like Martin Kramer who want to insist that all schools receiving Middle East studies grants should prove their ideological correctness.

May I venture that learning Arabic might possibly have the pupil identifying with Arab culture, and thus gain a different vantage point from which to view the Israel-Palestinian conflict, making her suspect to the authorities and such.