Couldn't agree more, but you're not expecting it to change anytime this century, are you? It's been the cry of ages for anyone in this line of work attending a long language course at DSL (and elsewhere), even in the dim and distant days of fully-loaded Russian interpreter courses; essentially, you were taking up to 18 months out of your career to do a non-career, degree-equivalent course, which given the level of demand for skilled linguists down the years was utterly ridiculous. That's even more the case now. Contrast that with courses of much shorter duration that did advance careers - let me pick one entirely at random - oh, I know - the old Supvr (R) course! - which was four months long (if that) and from which a lot of sproggy spec ops got their staffy and advanced their careers significantly.

These days, when you have people who are expected to be extremely competent in all aspects of the linguistic "trade" in two languages minimum, it's utterly absurd that these long courses don't carry some kind of formal career recognition. In the past, I held the opinion that this was the result of no one in senior management ever having to endure the rigours of attending a long language course. Hardly surprising though, as some of them spoke English no better than the average football player; hardly the ideal people you'd want in ultimate control of linguists' careers.

Last edited by Dontdreamit on Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:11 pm; edited 1 time in total

Laughed quite a bit - so true, myself included.

I still believe that Arabic is slightly better to learn than Pashto as the diaspora is larger and richer (even though dialect training will be required on top of MSA) and should one become very good there are opportunities after service life. With Pashto or Dari ... quite possibly not.

Why has the option of in-service degrees not been pushed for ORs or very young Officers - didnt Mike Jackson join the Corps after spending three years at Birmingham Uni sponsored by the Army learning Russian to which he put to good use in Pristina several decades later?

The average or potential JNCO is likely to be motivated by three years at a decent Uni (snob factor and or totty would have to be factored in!) to learn the language with a return of service committment or requirement to buyout IF manning allowed. At least one year after Phase 2 training in a Unit with satisfactory performance - no warning orders, no alcohol or money problems required to be considered. This would allow it to be used as a carrot for recruits without promises - without leaving the Corps open to the charge of 'I only joined to do XXX' if not selected.

After successful degree and further mil training in breaks, most students would still be in 20s (it would be extremely stupid to restrict such a scheme to 18-21 year olds - any age, and possibly up to and including Sgt if prepared for RoS) with a degree in their backpocket and hopefully (if selected right) a desire to put language into practice and no student debts as all would have been paid for by HMG but with the prospect of a public debt of 20k to be repaid if leaving before a 5 year return of service after graduation.

For Graduates a post graduate language qualification recognised by industry/teaching/other government departments again with return of service.

For those that fail the course or cannot continue then a return to normal units. Hmm Bulford or Uni ? Let me think.

Oh yes - nearly forgot - wasnt it the aspiration of the last Corps Colonel but one and the previous Director but one, that all OPMIs would be trained to colloquial level in a language of some sort ?

Hmm not much going on there. Perhaps the 2 year Staff Officer cycle and over preponderence of Officer DEs of the transferee variety has scuppered this.

Hopefully one day we can have Staff Officers who understand Intelligence, Security, Languages and other specialisations, have YEARS of experience and not DEs who have crossed over because they couldnt get Company Command in the Inf !

Ouch , thats a bit sharp for a 4th post. I don't suppose you thought about what you were going to put in their Christmas Boxes then?

I'm reliably informed that D INT briefed this years WOs convention that our officer recruiting was to be 50% DE, 25% LE and 25% transferee.

I nearly smashed my monitor when I read this. I can only assume this is because he himself is a transferee that this sort of bollocks has been allowed to occur.

Apparently we can pick and choose who we want to commission as well as those we enlist. That a decision has been made that 25% must come from transferees is baffling. Perhaps the Corps wouldn't have such a shortfall at Capt/Maj level if that 25% went to LE commissions.

Just a thought. We need to stop taking on majs from other capbadges and I'd also put an end to SNCO transferees except those that have skill sets we want (AHs usually).

Excellent read so far and allow me to dip my toes into the waters once more.

Becuase we (the royal we as in the Army) dont have a career stream for linguists the Org (and those within it) continue to suffer. As much as DInt and the SOinC smile and say "splendid" they return back to do Corps buisness, afterall they only supply manpower, its the Org that provides skillsets.

Our said volunteer does thier first few months within the Org and feels "hey this is good stuff, I fancy getting into it a bit more" and bags a language course. 18 - 24 months later they return to either find a quick tour then out or worse arrive back to find an assignment order sending them back to the Corps.

The result is the Org has to appease the Corps into letting it retain these volunteers for at least another tour. The Corps get uppity becuase suddenly career profiles are getting skewed. Another problem is our volunteer promotes and becuase their is no rank range within JPA billets he has to leave the Org unless the unit cmd cannot do some jiggery pokery to retain them.

Lets look at the same model but used differently. SF, it takes manpower from the Corps but look at the postings and financial rewards. 7 year posting minimum, look at the SFC 16k a year more. Glasgow cannot bend backwards enough for this lot and rigthly so BUT why the debacle we have here over linguist volunteers?

The Org should be fighting to maximise retention and see a return. Same for the volunteer they should see a return for their time also, a longer posting (they will deploy multiple times so no worries of stagnating in Lincolnshire). Let them promote and stay in post, a long course should carry a financial bonus with further incentives to attain higher levels.

Maybe the Org isnt fighting its corner? well it should bring in its bigger sponsor to support it after all no man is an island as they say.

So lets say the hint is taken who in the Army gets the linguist as a structured trade with the potential for a supervisory route?

DInt would say this is Int based this is my bag, lets recruit 500 bods.

SOinC would say this is Sigs based this is my bag, , lets recruit 500 bods.

Or maybe it should remain within the Org and run the same structure such as the SF example before. A structured focused unit of volunteers all going through a hard selection process who reap the rewards of such. Within the Org it runs its own rank structure with pay incentives to keep them in. Yes its a little too army for Org but I reckon as an idea it has some legs in it.


Again this carries the caveat of me being an outsider adding flavour (or petrol) to the debate

Now that would be pouring petrol onto the debate if the SOinC were to express that opinion!

Seeing as the regular army is having these issues, why not take a different approach:

If you are studying a certain language (or indeed anything the army seems to have trouble recruiting / retaining / training) then offer these people the cost of their University fees paid in exchange for serving in the OTC and then staying in the TA for 1 Operational Tour or 5 years?

msr

Point taken I mean could/maybe/suggest/postulate rather than would!!

The point is, can the Corps run a Linguist trade successfully to 1 customer or should this be a career you can volunteer into and stay in for the duration of your career.

Sorry - didnt mean to raise your blood pressure.

For long term retention of good NCOs in our Corps I would like to see a figure of at least 40% LEs across the Corps - perhaps up to 50% and crucially from a range of disciplines not just the supposedly 'tasty' ones. People will stay in if they have a reasonable chance of a long and satisfying career - the way things are going people are thinking (out loud) that its not worth it to stay in for the slim chance of commissioning after an equally slim chance of making WO1 so why not jump at 12? I also think creaming off some of the best Cpls/LCpls to DE commission is robbing the Sgts Mess of the future.

Im sorry to disagree on the point about SNCO transferees if they have something our Corps needs eg AH. In my experience these are the people we dont need as transferees, especially to go on to be LEs simply because they have a narrow view of what Intelligence is and how it is used - it is not simply collection as an end in itself - some cant see beyond their own collection - not all but some. The same is true to a lesser extent in other specialisations but they are generally not going for transfers.

I would prefer to have transferees at the Pte/LCpl/Cpl level rather than at the point where they want an 'easy' 5-6 year rundown to their 22. The percentages quoted are a disgrace - transfer should be on merit not because your in the 24th percentile of applicants.

AH can continue being AH wearing a different capbadge with no detriment to their career so there is no need to transfer, and if they really really do want to be part of our Corps, perhaps they would like to join at Cpl and do a non handling job straight after a full OPMI 3 (and not just a beefed up JSP 101 and educashun module on the handlers course to improve report writing skills ).

However I digress. Linguist training needs dedication (if you want to be a recordbreaker!) and motivation, either through self-interest (promotion / financial) or enjoyment(learning a language you want to) .

It just seems obvious to me that D INT (the organisation not the individual) Staff are incapable of planning for the long term because they do not have a broad based Int/Sy background with SMEs on areas such as Language training informing the decision making process or if they do they are ignored.

Its not just about this year or next or even the next 5 years in obvious places - Arabic/Pashto fine...what about developing and retaining a pool of Spanish, Swahili, Urdu/Hindi, Chinese, Somali and yes ...even Russian (!) ie those countries that may pose a threat or even - bugger me sideways - host a threat to ourselves in years to come. It doesnt have to be massive or even fully employed - let this pool do other things.

Where is the long term planning for unforeseen contingencies? And yes I do mean planning to mitigate and minimise the risk by having qualified deployable linguists over a range of languages and dialects. Current policy appears to be driven by desperation.

Last edited by Dontdreamit on Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

Not true, unless you have piss poor Chain of Command.

Last edited by Dontdreamit on Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

I know of one JNCO that got to do Spanish without any other language under their belt. You don't ask, you don't get. Although admittedly sometimes you do ask and don't get!!!!

Well done everyone who has contributed to this thread. I have been watching it for some time now with great interest. The quality of the posts has been fantastic and, no doubt, they have been submitted by people with a vast amount of experience of the various issues discussed – especially the first three pages. I have been hugely impressed not only by both the concerns raised by some of you but also by the positive responses given by those evidently involved in the training process.

Although I too have spent time in DSL (a while ago), I am by no means a linguist nor do I have the depth of knowledge to which some of you have displayed; but I am familiar with the overall system of recruiting, training and deploying our personnel as terps.

Without repeating any of the points raised already, let me conclude this thread with the following notes:

I can assure you all – unequivocally – that the work done by Int Corps linguists, and other service personnel who deploy as terps, receives constant praise from commanders at the very highest levels pan-defence; their efforts do not go unnoticed. What we need to do now is develop a more sensibly structured and robust system of fully integrating the training process into their overarching career management. And, recognise our efforts with just rewards, be that financial or whatever. Or even honours and awards (connect to other recent thread).

We are aware that there is a plethora of the perennial problems which, regardless of previous attempts to fix, are still, yet to be resolved. This will take time. However, since Apr 07, we have been pushing hard for the formation of the DOLSU and we believe that when it reaches FOC mid 2009, it will be entirely focused on resolving many of the issues which have been discussed in this thread. Please be patient. I did like the analogy with the “super tanker”, and yes, it is turning... slowly. For those that can, have a looksee... www.armynet.mod.uk/club/pages/menu/

Finally, the topic of budgets has, understandably, come up several times. Let’s be clear about this, there is no more money for defence. We might be able to better use whatever we can from the operational vote but we ain’t getting a larger slice of the annual defence pie. Nor will the defence budget increase either. This is not being negative, it’s reality. What we need now is additional “out of the box” thinking. The Corps is currently investigating initiatives such as:

a. Permitting officers to join as linguists. Many officers throughout the Army, on joining, were interested in the Int Corps, but on realising that they could not become a linguist, went to other cap badges. FACT! Any problems aside (and there will be a couple), this would increase our pool considerably.

b. On the subject of native speakers, there is already in place a 10-15 year plan, in conjunction with the ACF movement, to recruit more native speakers of our target languages. Yes, this will take time too, but the cadets have already started the ball rolling. Yes, there will be additional security concerns but these MUST be overcome.

c. A study of the US model. US linguists are just that... professional, fully trained, full-time linguists. They do nothing else. Why not take the hit on other aspects of tradecraft and make ours pure linguists/terps? Then, let’s review their TACOS. Why does a linguist need to retire after 22 years (24 with VENG)? Worth looking at, at least?

d. Civilian terps. Already covered in this thread but, again, worth considering. Yes, security concerns to be dealt with. And yes, they must be dealt with.

Now, none of these are the silver bullet we’re looking for but they all have a part in the greater plan for the future. The aggregation of several smaller pieces etc etc.

I realise that none of those initiatives above solve the specific training issues at DSL already identified above. But, what I urge you all to do is use your experience and intelligence and think laterally and identify similar initiatives for improving the quality of our training and pass them up the COC to DOLSU during the course of the 2009.

Hope you all had a super Xmas and New Year. Now, let's get back to it and pull together.

WBTDNT

Once again, can someone who makes decisions please decide what they think a linguist is? If it's an OP MI (L), that's someone who works for the majority of his career in SIGINT, then we already have a pool of personnel who have proven language ability. They'd also love to get out and do some ACTIVE language jobs. You never know, the odd job outside the SIGINT mainstream might even keep a few of them in. Actually, I'm sure I've heard that idea somewhere before as well.

If you think a linguist is someone you can pick up from civvy street, or an already serving soldier who has passed a language exam, either of whom will deploy in order to interpret on the ground between 2 or more people who will be in the same physical space then that is fine, but you have to make the distinction between the two! We are in a Corps which has linguists as a matter of course and you are in danger of confusing the 2 jobs which share a common title. That way, when RSM 5 asks me to come and speak to his soldiers about what linguists do, I can say yes, not sorry fella, but what your guys are going to do is NOT what I do. That way he won't be upset, and I won't look a bit daft.

And really, can we all "use (y)our experience and intelligence and think laterally and identify similar initiatives for improving the quality of our training and pass them up the COC" ? How many reviews of linguist careers and training does it take? At least 2 major reviews last year and still ongoing, not to mention the mother of all reviews in 2001 when the Tele Op Lings were forced across from the Signals. And still the same tired old complaints that were being argued over when Gladys was a boy.

Last edited by Dontdreamit on Sun Mar 01, 2009 3:12 pm; edited 1 time in total

never mind all that arabic stuff. is anyone learning Chinese? give it ten years and we'll need it...

Wow great thread. Really enjoyed all posts, there's some great advice being given so thanks a lot. I'm keen on becoming a linguist in the Int corps and i'm midway through joining up. Although its clear there are some issues within the corps regarding language training i'm still keen to press on and get stuck in. And i'm hoping that you will look on that as willful determination as opposed to foolish naivity...

If anyone can give me some advice on what i'm getting myself into regarding the language course it would be welcome as compared to the level of knowledge you have i'm still very much a fetus in the world of army and int corps.
Thanks again.