Thread: Linguist training

Originally Posted by Op_Int_and_Spy

Originally Posted by hoohenners

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 ?

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 !

(edited)

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.

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.

:D

Originally Posted by Dontdreamit

Also - if a JNCO with no prior language training submits an application (via CoC) for a language other than the big 2 they will receive a big 'f"ck off' almost immediately.

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

:D

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... https://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.

:D

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.

Originally Posted by younghopeful

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.

At the risk of being picky - and only because if I don't Perevodchik will-that is the American spelling- you will remain a foetus until emerging into the light of the Corps when you will be reborn as a Sprog.

As for languages and training it's all here - you just need to trawl throgh the detritus (good word that)

Originally Posted by devexwarrior

At the risk of being picky - and only because if I don't Perevodchik will-that is the American spelling- you will remain a foetus until emerging into the light of the Corps when you will be reborn as a Sprog.

As for languages and training it's all here - you just need to trawl throgh the detritus (good word that)

that's a good word too

Originally Posted by CRmeansCeilingReached

Originally Posted by devexwarrior

At the risk of being picky - and only because if I don't Perevodchik will-that is the American spelling- you will remain a foetus until emerging into the light of the Corps when you will be reborn as a Sprog.

As for languages and training it's all here - you just need to trawl throgh the detritus (good word that)

that's a good word too

It's a fair cop, Guv

I'm getting worried. I think Pervodchik might be my secret smarter younger brother, I agree with him so much.

Originally Posted by Perevodchik

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.

It's certainly an idea which has been kicking around for many years, now. Opportunities during the Cold War were limited, given the very restricted number of, um, active linguist roles which involved direct interaction with the Sovs, although some things, including JACIG, did give Russian linguists the chance to step off the 13/14 treadmill for at least a tour. I gather that the (then) dacron-clad Arabists had some opportunities as well. I knew of no-one who failed to enjoy a look outside the dark side and, as far as I know, pretty much everyone doing it was well-regarded.

Originally Posted by Perevodchik

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.

I think it's a touch more complex than that. Apart from the darkside roles, on the active side, there are at least three separate active skillsets:

- Translation/interpreting - purely linguistic roles. Needn't be Int Corps and arguably shouldn't be.
- Interrogation/debriefing - collection roles using a language and core Corps skills. Ought to be Int Corps or equivalent.
- Other conversational roles - collection roles using a language and core Corps skills. Ought to be Int Corps, can be E2.

Originally Posted by Perevodchik

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.

True, all true. Until there's a coherent language/linguist policy developed across the entire military establishment (i.e. tri-service, much we can learn from the RAF here), informed by people who actually understand this stuff, we can expect to see the wheel continuing to be developed. So much of the thread above is sickeningly familiar from my time in and so many things seem not to have changed.

Originally Posted by Perevodchik

And still the same tired old complaints that were being argued over when Gladys was a boy.

Cheap but entirely accurate shot. Yesterday was the 31st anniversary of my troop forming up for basic training.

Originally Posted by Needle_Point

Originally Posted by tearsbeforebedtime

I would like to book the dry dock for week to service my ship. I must talk to the harbour master.

I need to book a double room with an en-suite and a nice view of the cathedral.

I would like to rent a medium sized car with air con.*

Hmmm, and they are not up to scratch?

*Examples from an aquaintence on the Pashto course (allegedly Dari is the same). My personal favorite has to be the first.

Bit harsh, perhaps they are good examples of grammar in the language?

One of the first Japanese phrases I leant was "Where is the teacher's umbrella" as it just happened to be a good structured example; I never really cared whether the lecturer got damp or not, and it's not been much use since but it still stuck rather annoyingly in my head ("Kore Wa Sensai No Kasa Desu Ka?")

I couldn't resist this, and yes, I'm a fcuking pedant

But your translation is incorrect, "Kore wa sensei no kasa desu ka?" means "is this the teacher's umbrella", surely if you wanted to express "where is the teacher's umbrella?", you'd say "Sensei no kasa wa dare desu ka?"

sorry but it's been bugging me for weeks.