Iraq Interpreter Mask Ban Rescinded

by: Brandon Friedman

Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 07:08:09 AM EST

The Pentagon has rescinded a controversial decision that banned Iraqi interpreters working for US troops in Baghdad from protecting their identities by wearing ski-masks.

The ban was meant to reflect the improved security situation - in which interpreters were no longer afraid of retaliation. But that is not the case.

US officials at first tried to defend the Pentagon ruling, saying interpreters could seek alternative employment if they were unhappy with it.

But the issue was taken up by Democratic Senator Ron Wyden. He sent a Congressional petition to the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates.

"Preventing interpreters from concealing their identities puts their lives, as well as the lives of their families at grave risk," said the petition letter.

It went on: "The heightened threat could also reduce the numbers of interpreters available in Iraq, due to death and resignations, and put American service members and their missions in danger."

Col Willoughby said the mask ban had now been lifted and that decisions could be made at an operational level.

"We ask them not to wear masks," he said. "But troop commanders can make that determination."

That's funny that Col. Willoughby would say something like that, since I wrote this on November 19:

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.

Now, either Col. Willoughby reads VetVoice, or the new, correct course of action he's describing was just breathtakingly obvious to anyone who's ever practiced counterinsurgency in Iraq.  

I'm gonna go with breathtakingly obvious.

And this is good a thing.  A poor decision was made, some people stepped in, and the situation was rectified.  However, this episode is far from over.  The military needs to go back now and find out which dumbass in the rear thought this policy was a good idea in the first place.  We need names.  Because, in all seriousness--as Senator Wyden noted--this reckless policy "put American service members and their missions in danger."  And that's no small issue. It would be easy for the Pentagon to discount such an accusation if they hadn't rescinded the directive, but now that they have, I take that as an admission that they view this as having been an extraordinarily dangerous policy to implement.  And for that, someone needs to get fired.  Likewise, if any interpreters were killed or had families harmed during the time this ban was in effect, then stronger action needs to be taken.

To start, we can look no further than Lt. Col. Steve Stover who obnoxiously said the following:

"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."

Lt. Col. "Can Seek Alternative Employment" didn't stop there:

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."

Despite Stover's smug attitude toward translators, he's really just the mouthpiece here.  I'm more interested in who sent him out to talk to the media.  Who's his boss?  Where did this directive come from?  Who formulated it?  I want to know who signed off on it and thought to him or herself at the time, "This is a damn good idea.  This is how you win an insurgency."  Because that person needs an alternative tasking within the military, or maybe even in the civilian world.  As Dr. Peter Venkman would say, a staff officer like that should "have no trouble finding a top-flight job in either the food service or housekeeping industries."  This counterinsurgency stuff is best left to professionals.

Of course, the BBC interviewed one of those professionals--an Iraqi interpreter--who agreed:

He has worked without a mask for some time, realising that it helps the hearts and minds campaign.  "But the decision needs to be in my hands, not in the hands of someone in Washington who knows nothing about how we work."

UPDATE: When I say "we need names," I don't necessarily mean you and me.  I mean the military needs to find out who was responsible and then take action.  But it can be dealt with internally.