| The traditional media and the military blogosphere are up in arms over the new policy that bans Iraqi translators from wearing masks--and for good reason it now seems.
When I wrote about this yesterday, I withheld judgment. Army Lt. Col. Steve Stover's comments about translators in the Washington Post just seemed too careless. I assumed there had to be more to the story--maybe something I wasn't seeing. For those who missed it, here's what Stover said with regard to the new policy banning Iraqi translators from wearing masks:
"We are a professional Army and professional units don't conceal their identity by wearing masks," Lt. Col. Steve Stover, a spokesman for the U.S. military, wrote in an e-mail. He expressed appreciation for the service and sacrifice of the interpreters but said those dissatisfied with the new policy "can seek alternative employment."
He went on to callously conclude:
Stover, the U.S. military spokesman, said he didn't know how many interpreters have resigned or been reassigned as a result of the mask rule.
In any case, he said, the Baghdad command "is not having problems, as the contractor is not having any issues filling our translators/interpreters requirement."
Unfortunately, it seems that, well, maybe I was seeing everything there was to see.
Despite the fact that Donald Rumsfeld called service members "fungible" in 2004, they're not. And while Lt. Col. Stover obviously doesn't realize it, the same goes for translators. And I'm not the only one who sees it this way. The reaction across print media and in the military blogosphere has been swift and one-sided. Take the examples below.
Writing for the New Yorker from Iraq, George Packer rips into both Stover and the policy:
I'm sorry, LTC Stover, but this is stupidity and callousness posing as rectitude. For years, Iraqis working with American units were allowed to hide their faces so that they could keep their heads on their necks. The new order has already led to firings and a significant number of resignations, as well as desperate measures--one interpreter smearing his face with mascara, another hoping that a new beard will keep his identity secret. This is the kind of order that headquarters dreams up and combat troops detest.
Exactly what code of conduct is being maintained here? Iraqis aren't in the American chain of command. They don't take an oath; they don't fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If they did, they would be given regulation uniforms. They wouldn't be allowed to use aliases. They would be housed on bases rather than obliged to make the dangerous trip home every night. They would receive pensions, health insurance, and death benefits. When one of them gets killed, the military would hold a ceremony. The widow would receive a flag. A grateful nation would remember.
All true. And I fully expect Lt. Col. Stover to feel like a jackass when he reads Packer's piece. But if he misses it, maybe he'll catch the sentiments steaming out of Portland in regard to the Army's new "foolish and cruel policy"--as described by the Editorial Board of The Oregonian:
In a triumph of bureaucratic small-mindedness over human empathy, the Army now forbids the Iraqi interpreters from wearing masks to conceal their faces while working with U.S. troops. Iraqi interpreters continue to receive threats, and some are killed, because they collaborate with Americans.
The only rationale expressed for this new policy seems to be the flippant statement of Army spokesman Lt. Col. Steve Stover. . . .
::
::
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Or. and others, including Oregon's own Checkpoint One Foundation, a nonprofit, are protesting the Army's unconscionable new policy. Here's hoping that the outcry is loud enough to cause somebody with an ounce of compassion to slap his forehead and reverse the ban on letting Iraqis use a few inches of fabric to protect their identities.
Vermont's Times Argus doesn't mince words and all but flat-out blames REMFs for the new policy:
Few aspects of war are more infuriating than the loss of lives that result largely from flawed reasoning by the brass who do their thinking far from the action.
One old, but good, example: In World War I, Britain's military decision-makers concluded that airmen of the Royal Flying Corps - the precursor to the Royal Air Force - should not have parachutes because they were too heavy, too large and, most importantly, too likely to encourage crews to bail out prematurely.
Consequently, many British airmen were killed over France's bloody battlefields when their flimsy craft were hit by enemy fire and they had no safe way out. None of the decision-makers lost their lives that way, of course. They were snug, smug and safe back in London.
That kind of thinking hasn't entirely vanished. According to a report in Monday's Washington Post, the U.S. Army has forbidden Iraqi interpreters from using masks to hide their identities from radicals who view them as traitors.
And the blogosphere was even less forgiving.
From Democracy Arsenal, the National Security Network's blog:
Even now "The Mahdi Army, the armed group led by anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, collects and distributes photos of interpreters working with U.S. troops." Also, consider Mexico, where federal troops battling drug cartels in Chihuahua don't "dare show their faces, wearing ski masks instead." If federal soldiers in Mexico are that frightened, one can only imagine what the Iraqi interpreters are experiencing.
In a war that offers few clear choices, this seems like a nonsensical policy that appears to only endanger those Iraqis that have actually chosen to help us. There is no reason to add to the "nearly 300 interpreters" slain since 2003 in Iraq. The truth is that despite the improving security situation the country remains a very violent place to live and work, and it will remain so for years to come even after the current withdrawal deadline of 2011.
Of course, Iraq veteran LT Nixon chimed in, too, blaming this one on the Good Idea Fairy:
Since I had the pleasure of working on a staff in Iraq for a year, allow me to shed some light on how these policies are born.
A Flag Officer mentions at a staff meeting that Iraqis working with the coalition "need to look more professional"
Colonel sits his cell down and says "Team, the general wants our Iraqi troopers looking better, we need a 'Way Ahead'"
Lt. Colonel or a motivated Major comes up with a "Great Idea" to unmask terps without thinking about the consequences
Disgruntled Majors and Disheveled Captains/LTs (that's me) forced to make 10-slide powerpoint highlighting "The Way Ahead" for "A newly aligned Professionalism"
General sees powerpoint and congratulates Colonel and his team for their contributions to the war effort at the next weekly staff meeting
So the big question is who is to blame? Is it the General for upholding professional standards, the Colonel for trying to get things done, the Junior Officers for doing what they are told? No, it's the goddamn Good Idea Fairy's fault! Luckily, someone at the O-5/O-6 level can cut down ideas like this by saying "Seriously, this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard", but that process seems to have failed in this case.
Even the guys at Blackfive think Lt. Col. Stover is shilling for a stupid policy:
I'm sorry Steve, you f**king idiot, but your desire and whichever idiot flag officer you represent's desire for conformity and uniformity is not important enough to get better men than you killed. If you are so hell bent on having uniform looking terps then haul your FOB sitting ass out among the populace and let's see how you fare.
However, I thought the best response to the new policy by far was that left as a comment in my original piece by Iraq veteran IrritatedVet:
This should be one of those old Bud Light commercials, "Real Men of Genius."
"Here's to you, staff officer Douchebag, for doing all you can to shoot our forces in the foot yet again. Grab a cold Bud Light, Mister, and say, 'Yeah, they took another one for the team, and I got a good bullet point on my OER!'"
All humor aside, this is a deadly serious situation with thousands of lives at stake. In my view, this is a policy that should be implemented by those at the company level. Like I said yesterday, there's no way that this somehow falls under the jurisdiction of anyone at the MNF level. I think the military should encourage--even urge--translators to take off the masks for a number of reasons, but you can't make it a blanket policy.
There are too many variables at play here. Consider, if your platoon or company has a good, trusted interpreter, that Iraqi can sometimes be the most important member of the team. I haven't been there in a long time, but when I was, our interpreters weren't there to simply translate words from Arabic to English: They were the best intelligence gatherers in the battalion; they were deal makers between us and the local community; they cultivated relationships; and sometimes they even provided input during mission planning. And when you're in middle of an insurgency, having a local like this on your side can, indeed, make the difference between mission success and mission failure.
Now, not all interpreters are this valuable. Some are just there for the paycheck. But when you have a translator like one I described above, it makes no sense to possibly force them into resignation over the image they project. In a case like that, it just wouldn't be worth it. It's too bad that officers like Lt. Col. Stover--and whoever he's representing--somehow think the well being of contractors is more important.
This is a big deal, and at VoteVets we don't intend to let it slide. Too many of us owe our lives to Iraqi interpreters. And for that, we can at least try to prevent counterinsurgency amateurs in the Green Zone from jeopardizing the lives of those on whom we've depended.
Let's relegate this new policy to the same dustbin now containing the decisions to fly the "Mission Accomplished" banner, to disband the Iraqi Army, and to re-design the Iraqi flag. It's definitely on par with those. |
