Military Review English Edition November-December 2014 | Page 70

with counterparts (e.g., trying to eat distasteful foods,
letting counterparts hold the advisor’s hand, understanding that counterparts might apply harsh punishments to their own troops, and so on).
Carefully navigate cases when cultural stretching
goes too far. At times advisors need to politely refrain
from events (e.g., that cross moral boundaries) and also
may need to try to influence counterparts to stop certain actions—without disrespecting counterparts.17
Remain firm while not being either commanding
or too diplomatic; strong, respectful, and courteous
military advisors gain their counterparts’ respect.
Perform cost-benefit analyses about taking mission-related physical and cultural risks to help build
rapport with counterparts and advance the mission.
For example, sometimes advisors must work hard to
acquire permission to reside on their counterparts’ bases, travel in their counterparts’ vehicles (or at least to
frequently travel in convoys with their counterparts),
soften their conventional military appearance standards (e.g., U.S. Special Forces advisors sometimes grow
beards or wear military patches given to them by their
counterparts), and so on.18
Linguists are vital intercultural intermediaries. A
second major post-9/11 advisory lesson learned is the
need for advisors to work effectively with linguists (also
known as translators or interpreters). During the Iraq
and Afghan conflicts, only a very small handful of advisors spoke their counterpart’s language at a working
level, or worked with counterparts who spoke English
at a high enough level of competence to preclude misunderstandings. Thus, the overwhelming majority of
U.S. advisors had to use linguists, many of whom lacked
the vocabulary and cultural understanding of both
sides to provide translations beyond a basic level. This
presented a special problem because without effective
communications advisory missions are doomed to
failure. Therefore, successful advisors developed special
skills to effectively lead, build rapport with, and make
full use of their linguists’ talents.
Numerous conditions had an impact on the development of solid linguist-advisor relationships. These
included understanding the diverse backgrounds of the
actors involved in advising sessions (linguists, counterparts, and advisors), sensitivity to the cultural nuances
within different regions and counterpart organizations, and familiarity with the specialized jargon and

•
•
•

68

vocabulary used in the relevant military subject matter
in specific advising missions. In some cases, important
technical terms and words used by the U.S. military do
not exist in the counterparts’ language; thus, linguists
had to coin new terms with explanations for counterparts to understand.
Additionally, advisors need to know the occupational origins of their linguists. Is the linguist a school
trained military specialist (09L), or a locally contracted civilian? Further, advisors need to learn the category of their linguist in terms of language proficiency as
rated by military testing. These issues, in addition to
a variety of other circumstances and factors, influence how advisors partner with linguists to advise
successfully.19
Since linguists also fill the role of vital intercultural
intermediaries between advisors and counterparts
in the advising mission, advisors must effectively
form bonds and relationships of trust with their linguists.20 A productive advisor-linguist relationship is a
November-December 2014  MILITARY REVIEW