Talk Radio News Service: News, Politics, Media

Does the United States military need to be versed in more than one language? This was the question, front and center at the House Armed Services Subcommittee hearing today. Committee members heard from panelists with an array of backgrounds in everything from linguistics to communications and the armed services.

Dr. Montgomery Mcfate who has worked to help social scientists support the armed services acknowledged that a critical question would be how the armed forces should acquire or access linguistic skills. “There are multiple possible means, to include: education, training, advisors, and databases. An additional question concerns the optimal amount of sociocultural knowledge that United States military personnel should have, and the trade-offs in terms of time, money and manpower that acquiring this knowledge entails,” said Mcfate.

The issue of linguistics according to Dr. Amy Zalman of Science Applications International Corporation is not only a cultural barrier but a national security concern. Zalman provided a 2003 document, Military Transformation which details the calls for “processes to enable innovation and adaptability in respect to linguistics.” The document that was presented goes on to say “if we do not transform, our enemies will surely find new ways to attack us.”

The belief that language can have powerful consequences if not dealt with was echoed by panelist Dr. Andrew Krepinevich who told the committee “no one wants to build the next tank army to attack America, they want to build chemical weapons.” Krepinevich along with the other members of the panel believe that it is the United States responsibility to deal with the cultural linguistic challenges that face the armed forces. “The need for language proficiency is now,” said Krepinvech.