By Patricia H. Kushlis
Years ago when I was a graduate student, Planned Parenthood hired a colleague to knock on doors in Syracuse, New York to learn where poor women got their information about sex and reproductive health. Before embarking on her first interview, my friend asked me if she could practice on me. So I said sure – anything to put off writing yet one more term paper for yet another day. Besides she offered tea and cupcakes as an added inducement. What graduate student would turn down that offer?
I don’t remember the details, but I do remember that I answered Aunt Minnie to any question she asked relating to my most trusted source on this sensitive topic. My colleague was – to say the least - skeptical. In fact, she thought I was being obstructionist - that was - until her first round of interviews. Next time I saw her, however, she told me that Aunt Minnie – or her equivalent – had been the most popular response. I felt vindicated. But I had grown up in a small town after all.
Fast forward to 2000
One of the articles I had students read in my international politics class at the University of New Mexico was a research study conducted in Africa on people’s primary information sources. Right. A majority of Africans interviewed said that word of mouth was their major source of reliable news.
On to the Present
Now, I don’t want to belabor the point but I have to wonder how much of the $300 million the Pentagon awarded last September in contracts to the Lincoln Group, SOS International (SOSi), MPRI and Leonie Industries in September was money well spent. This story was first reported by Karen De Young and Walter Pincus in the October 3, 2008 Washington Post. Pincus refers to the same contract in a more recent article on public diplomacy on Monday, January 12, 2009.
Seems to me that DeYoung and Pincus raise a number of important questions lost in the primordial election haze – but one important question suggests that targeting newspapers and television stations with pay for play unattributed “news” articles is a waste of your and my taxpayer dollars. Let’s put aside the ethical question for the moment and just concentrate on the hard cold reality at least according to one raised by these two experienced reporters: Namely, Iraqis view their own personal experience – not the disembodied media - as their single most reliable source of information.
Now I suspect that the $300 million contract (spread over the next three years) is just a drop in the bucket of Pentagon spending on Information Operations in Iraq. This makes the question, therefore, even more important.
Earlier this week I attended a conference on public diplomacy in Washington, D.C. A Rear Admiral on one of the panels admitted that the US military did not have and will not have in the near future anywhere near the number of language qualified troops needed to engage people overseas in their own languages. As a result, Uncle Sam relies on contractors to carry out the function. He later added that what was most important was that the Iraqis and the Afghans see what we do, not just rely on being told what to think.
What I’d like to know, however, is why the US military still doesn’t train anywhere near enough troops in basic foreign language communication skills?
With the billions being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan alone, wouldn’t you think that five years – almost six years – after we invaded those countries our government would have taught substantial numbers of troops to speak basic Arabic and Pashtu - at least?
Seems to me that cultural sensitivity and linguistic skills could provide the best body armor available.
I do agree with the Admiral that it’s crucial for the US government to practice what it preaches from the lowliest private to the commander-in-chief. What I will add, however, is that this discrepancy has been part of the foreign policy credibility gap under the W administration.
I also think that engaging people in their own language is part of practicing what we preach – especially in countries where personal experience is considered the most reliable source. Or have I missed something? Another cup of tea anyone?