Comments (96)

preAmerikkkan wrote on June 19, 2007 7:02 PM:

guess how many of those five are gay and have to lie to stay in Iraq?

UN Plaza wrote on June 19, 2007 7:07 PM:

guess how many of those five are gay and have to lie to stay in Iraq?

Zero, because FSOs are civilian employees and aren't subject to the military's don't ask/don't tell policy.

Security Code JEWEL, as in the diplomatic corps staff rank-and-file are the jewels of US foreign policy, such as it is

Vampa wrote on June 19, 2007 7:13 PM:

Zero, because FSOs are civilian employees and aren't subject to the military's don't ask/don't tell policy.

Posted by: UN Plaza

The military's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy has a Bush Administration version: "Don't be gay if you want to stay."

JL wrote on June 19, 2007 7:22 PM:

The actual question should be "How many people in the administration actually think that speaking Arabic in Iraq is important?

JL wrote on June 19, 2007 7:23 PM:

The actual question should be "How many people in the administration actually think that speaking Arabic in Iraq is important?

sm wrote on June 19, 2007 7:33 PM:

This reminds me of the fact that Lord Cromer, the British proconsul who ruled Egypt for the empire, did not speak Arabic -- only the Turkish spoken in the Egyptian royal court and by the top generals.

illinitarheel wrote on June 19, 2007 7:33 PM:

Unless things have changed since my tenure, 3/3 in a foreign language is not "fluency." That level might enable you to stumble through some conversations, though you might encounter misunderstanding on sophisticated subjects. If you want to shop and direct a taxi driver, it works great.

Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 7:34 PM:

Ah, fascinating. I have a sibling there working with the State Department who was in the DLI and was fluent in Arabic twenty some years ago. I wonder what rating my sibling has now? Certainly not 3/3, but perhaps. It's very interesting, as this sibling went in as a die-hard Bush supporter, but the emails we receive show a change of heart, perhaps...

This sibling is a Republican, but not anti-gay. Anti-gay marriage perhaps, but not anti-gay. There is hope.

gregor wrote on June 19, 2007 7:36 PM:

You guys are completely off base here.

Not a single British member of the Indian
Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or
any of the other Indian languages. And they
ruled for more than 200 years.

John Brown wrote on June 19, 2007 7:52 PM:

"And they ruled for more than 200 years."
Posted by: gregor

Is that why we are there with an embassy, to rule Iraq??? Exactly who is the Consul/Ruler?
Get real, if you please.

E-dog wrote on June 19, 2007 7:53 PM:

Yes, Gregor!

Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the world!

We don't need not stinking Arabic, we got the guns!

Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 7:56 PM:

"Not a single British member of the Indian
Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or
any of the other Indian languages. And they
ruled for more than 200 years."

So British colonial India is our model? It went swimmingly there. That's why the Brits are still there.

RSA wrote on June 19, 2007 7:56 PM:

Not a single British member of the Indian Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or any of the other Indian languages. And they ruled for more than 200 years.

Excellent: We graduate from a six month occupation to the 50-year Korean model to the 200-year British plan. Love the snark.

Chris Bowen wrote on June 19, 2007 8:00 PM:

The sad thing is that Arabic is not a single language. There is the media friendly Modern Standard Arabic, which most educated Arabs speak and read. But each region has a local dialect that everybody learns as kids. So, even if you speak MSA, you can't necessarily understand the Arabic spoken on the streets. It is kind of like how an English speaker understands some German. Which is a good analogy, since that is about the level of comprehension one would have. I.e., not much!

flex wrote on June 19, 2007 8:01 PM:

the only requirement to work there is to be a 'Loyal Bushie'. and as we've seen demonstrated time and time again, all 'Loyal Bushies' know is how to Lie, Cheat, Blame, Forget, and Kiss Bush's Ass!

Anonydude wrote on June 19, 2007 8:02 PM:

I've heard that the state department has been pushing people really hard to go to Iraq, and that they've tried to make it clear that doing time there will be very good for a person's future career.

A friend on the support side (not a FSO) used to tell me that he felt pressure to go there, but wasn't really crazy about the idea. Then later on he said that even if he wanted to go, he didn't think he'd be able to, because the carrots had been good enough to get a lot of people to volunteer.

It was never really clear what all of those people in the giant embassy would be doing, or why they had to go, or any of that.

The impression I got was that they were building the giant embassy as a show of faith in the Iraqi government, and as a statement about the strength of our commitment there, and that once they had chosen that path, they simply had to fill it up with people who might not necessarily have a lot to do.

That's not what my friend told me -- he's a loyal employee. But that was the impression I got.

A lot of people in the embassy will be doing mundane stuff -- making computers and phone systems work, running the PX, preparing food, etc.

And I imagine that they're probably not letting in many ordinary Iraqis who might want to apply for visas, or generate other kinds of embassy work that are more common in other countries. It's not like a delegation of american farmers are going to go over there and try to make deals to sell grain or beef to the locals. They can't -- they'd get killed. So the embassy isn't doing support work for that sort of thing.

In other words, most normal embassy functions are impossible because of the instability and violence, and the military is probably the real interface to the local people anyway.

So honestly, I think that 90% of the place is little more than a hollow gesture.

I also think that it's another example of how tone deaf the administration is. We want to say, we're building this thing to show we believe in you. But it probably comes across as an ugly promise of an indefinite occupation, and an oasis of decadent luxury in a country that's bleeding to death.

Chris Cronin wrote on June 19, 2007 8:03 PM:

Doesn't matter if we speak Arabic. Frankly, if we teach them how to speak English, the language God speaks, then maybe they'd come around to Christianity. And when you're Christian, you don't fight or kill any more, unless you protect your own. And you vote free too. Anyway, that's how I sees it, and I'm an American! If you disagree then you are elite and educated. I just don't think that's the markings of a true patriot!

Fred wrote on June 19, 2007 8:04 PM:

Yeah, the Sahibs did such a great job! Does anyone out there have any experience with the Belgians in the Congo in, what, the 50's and 60's? In the early 70's I served in the U.S. Navy with a Canadian soldier who had been in the Belgian Congo and he told some tales, but it was long ago and I don't remember any of the stories being pleasant.

Colonialism seems more than a little passé in this day and age.

Gene O'Grady wrote on June 19, 2007 8:05 PM:

I'm not sure if Sir William Jones was technically a member of the Indian Civil Service (he was a high ranking judge in British India) but he definitely knew quite a few Indian languages, enough to make the first translation of a major Indian work of literature (Sankantula) and demostrate the relation of Sanskrit and its successor languages to Greek, Latin, etc. I would be surprised if the scholarly society he founded in India didn't number a few polyglot civil servants among its members over the next 150 years.

oldtree wrote on June 19, 2007 8:09 PM:

the ambassdorhole must not even have come to grip with what he should be smart enough to know. he has a deckchair on the titanic. can you imagine being dumb enough to think that his boss cares about the things that embassies are usually doing?
what a putz

psyopswatcher wrote on June 19, 2007 8:14 PM:

Actually, the fact that the Indians were forced to be schooled in English is why they are tops in their engineering and medical training. Where does your cardiologist hail from?

Speaking their language does keep the translators honest.

Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 8:17 PM:

Wow, Gregor, ignorance much? Since it's all too evident that you're an undergrad with too much time on your hands, try browsing in the South Asia stacks of your college library and checking how many standard reference works about the languages, customs, and histories of the various regions were authored by guys whose Anglo-Saxon and Celtic monickers are followed by the initials I.C.S.

Yet more imbecilic, I have to say, is that whatever the merits of 1) the credentials of the Raj's functionaries as scholars and gentlemen and 2) the equation, which I'm sure was there from Day One, of the U.S. adventure in Iraq with the British episode that preceded it by some 85 years AS DRAWN IN THE MINDS OF IRAQIS, you seem to think that the readers of TPM Cafe, as informed Americans, should be displeased with that equation only to the degree that our own policy in the Middle East falls short of the standards set by British imperialism.

pomme1200 wrote on June 19, 2007 8:17 PM:

Regarding the statement:
********
Not a single British member of the Indian Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or any of the other Indian languages. And they ruled for more than 200 years.
*********

As a matter of fact, many British in the colonial offices and the Indian Civil Service spoke Hindi and other appropriate languages, and more than a few were fluent. See the many books of historian William Dalrymple, especially

Dalrymple, William. White Mughals : love and betrayal in eighteenth-centuryIndia / William Dalrymple. Hammersmith, London : HarperCollins Publishers, 2002.

Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 8:25 PM:

Further translation of the statement:
********
Not a single British member of the Indian Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or any of the other Indian languages. And they ruled for more than 200 years.
*********

But ... but ... but ... CLINTON did it!

Gandhi wrote on June 19, 2007 8:30 PM:

It was interesting to read today that only 20% of the people working at the Bagdhad are US-citizens.

psyopswatcher wrote on June 19, 2007 8:33 PM:

It's the Aryan Conquest Theory all over again.

Molly, NYC wrote on June 19, 2007 8:47 PM:

While we're up, how many people in Washington who pass themselves off as "Mideast experts" can speak Arabic--even by local standards, where Bush is considered to to be fluent in Spanish?

jay severin has a small pen1s wrote on June 19, 2007 8:51 PM:

Probably the same percentage of illegal aliens in this country who speak English.

If only Iraq had built a wall before 2003.

Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 8:59 PM:

If the King's English is good enough for the U.S. of A. and our lord Jesus Christ, it's good enough for Iraqis.

yathink wrote on June 19, 2007 9:08 PM:

This "embassy" is bigger than the Vatican, and easily more costly. Billions and billions of YOUR MONEY. What if we spent a small fraction of that on what is really needed, like electricity and water systems, hired Iraqis, and yes, hired some fluent diplomats? What a stupid waste. For want of a horseshoe nail ...

Bob wrote on June 19, 2007 9:28 PM:

Clausewitz, who fought in the Napoleonic wars, is Clausewitz famously said that war is “merely the continuation of politics by other means.”
Where was the politics that preceeded the war in
Iraq? How can you carry on "politics" when those who represent the U.S., can't speak the language of those with whom we deal? We have heard much about the needs of the military. How much have we heard--and what, then, is the apparent priority-- of the means to deal with other societies: language, history, religion, culture, etc.?
If you can't speak the language of your opponents, is it any wonder that there is a tendency to "shoot first and ask questions later"?!

Clausewitz wrote that a war, though theoretically boundless, is limited by the political objectives of the belligerents and by “friction” (errors, chance, fatigue). He viewed the defensive as the stronger form of war, and advocated that offensive operations be swift, overwhelming, and decisive

It is absolutely essential in avoiding armed conflict that the United States be able to communicate with representatives of those countries with which it deals, in the language of those countries. We must also have expertise in the history, politics, geography, religion and other facets of the cultures of those societies.
But most of what we hear and read suggests that armed conflict is the first resort, not the last. How much have we read about the need for more foreign language training or expertise in cultural knowledge or the essential value of
"humint" as opposed to military arms? Why is this clear priority of interest/expense so immed-iately accepted, apparently without question?! It is bewildering, frustrating...and frightening!

Bob wrote on June 19, 2007 9:28 PM:

Clausewitz, who fought in the Napoleonic wars, is Clausewitz famously said that war is “merely the continuation of politics by other means.”
Where was the politics that preceeded the war in
Iraq? How can you carry on "politics" when those who represent the U.S., can't speak the language of those with whom we deal? We have heard much about the needs of the military. How much have we heard--and what, then, is the apparent priority-- of the means to deal with other societies: language, history, religion, culture, etc.?
If you can't speak the language of your opponents, is it any wonder that there is a tendency to "shoot first and ask questions later"?!

Clausewitz wrote that a war, though theoretically boundless, is limited by the political objectives of the belligerents and by “friction” (errors, chance, fatigue). He viewed the defensive as the stronger form of war, and advocated that offensive operations be swift, overwhelming, and decisive

It is absolutely essential in avoiding armed conflict that the United States be able to communicate with representatives of those countries with which it deals, in the language of those countries. We must also have expertise in the history, politics, geography, religion and other facets of the cultures of those societies.
But most of what we hear and read suggests that armed conflict is the first resort, not the last. How much have we read about the need for more foreign language training or expertise in cultural knowledge or the essential value of
"humint" as opposed to military arms? Why is this clear priority of interest/expense so immed-iately accepted, apparently without question?! It is bewildering, frustrating...and frightening!

Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 9:29 PM:

Here's Gregor:

"You guys are completely off base here.

Not a single British member of the Indian
Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or
any of the other Indian languages. And they
ruled for more than 200 years."

What a totally ignorant statement. In fact, depending on the era in which they served, more than a few ICS members were quite conversant in at least one, if not many, south Asian languages. Some "Civilians" even wrote multi-volume texts and grammars on the most obscure "Indian" dialects as a hobby. As you are probably unaware, these guys had to hold court (literally) whenever they traveled their territories, hearing court cases and handing down judgements based on evidence presented often in the local native tongue. In a later era (i.e.--the 20th century), a certain number of ICS Civilians were themselves Oxbridge- educated Indian natives. Frankly, in many important ways, our Foreign Service is modeled on the ICS, and we could do a whole lot worse. I'd refer those interested to David Gilmour's "The Ruling Caste."

You can disparage the Brits for many things in the way they ran their the "Jewel" of their Empire but inattention to languages of the natives is not a fair one. You're not going to be able to intrigue and play one faction off against another if you can't understand what everyone at the table is saying, as we're now learning to our great chagrin in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and a multitude of other places. But this is the result of the "Decider's" "Administration."

Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 9:30 PM:

Here's Gregor:

"You guys are completely off base here.

Not a single British member of the Indian
Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or
any of the other Indian languages. And they
ruled for more than 200 years."

What a totally ignorant statement. In fact, depending on the era in which they served, more than a few ICS members were quite conversant in at least one, if not many, south Asian languages. Some "Civilians" even wrote multi-volume texts and grammars on the most obscure "Indian" dialects as a hobby. As you are probably unaware, these guys had to hold court (literally) whenever they traveled their territories, hearing court cases and handing down judgements based on evidence presented often in the local native tongue. In a later era (i.e.--the 20th century), a certain number of ICS Civilians were themselves Oxbridge- educated Indian natives. Frankly, in many important ways, our Foreign Service is modeled on the ICS, and we could do a whole lot worse. I'd refer those interested to David Gilmour's "The Ruling Caste."

You can disparage the Brits for many things in the way they ran their the "Jewel" of their Empire but inattention to languages of the natives is not a fair one. You're not going to be able to intrigue and play one faction off against another if you can't understand what everyone at the table is saying, as we're now learning to our great chagrin in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and a multitude of other places. But this is the result of the "Decider's" "Administration."

ICS wrote on June 19, 2007 9:31 PM:

Here's Gregor:

"You guys are completely off base here.

Not a single British member of the Indian
Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or
any of the other Indian languages. And they
ruled for more than 200 years."

What a totally ignorant statement. In fact, depending on the era in which they served, more than a few ICS members were quite conversant in at least one, if not many, south Asian languages. Some "Civilians" even wrote multi-volume texts and grammars on the most obscure "Indian" dialects as a hobby. As you are probably unaware, these guys had to hold court (literally) whenever they traveled their territories, hearing court cases and handing down judgements based on evidence presented often in the local native tongue. In a later era (i.e.--the 20th century), a certain number of ICS Civilians were themselves Oxbridge- educated Indian natives. Frankly, in many important ways, our Foreign Service is modeled on the ICS, and we could do a whole lot worse. I'd refer those interested to David Gilmour's "The Ruling Caste."

You can disparage the Brits for many things in the way they ran the "Jewel" of their Empire but inattention to languages of the natives is not a fair one. You're not going to be able to intrigue and play one faction off against another if you can't understand what everyone at the table is saying, as we're now learning to our great chagrin in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and a multitude of other places. But this is the result of the "Decider's" "Administration."

biggerbox wrote on June 19, 2007 9:33 PM:

Dang, they surprised me. I was sure the number would be a single digit.

ahem wrote on June 19, 2007 9:45 PM:

While we're up, how many people in Washington who pass themselves off as "Mideast experts" can speak Arabic

Well, Michael 'bastard, please!' Ledeen has neither visited Iran nor speaks Persian: that, he says, is what translators are for. And Persian is a much easier language to acquire than Arabic.

I'll note that Rory Stewart, who was sent by the Foreign Office to manage a southern Iraqi province, is fluent in Persian and Turkish, and knew enough Arabic to be able to correct his translators.

judyinnm wrote on June 19, 2007 9:59 PM:

Doesn't being fluent in Arabic qualify one to be designated an enemy combatant? Better look it up.

Hobson wrote on June 19, 2007 10:01 PM:

As for mastery of South Asian languages by ICS members, look to the life and work of Arthur Burnell:

In addition to his exhaustive acquaintance with Sanskrit, and the southern India vernaculars, he had some knowledge of Tibetan, Arabic, Kawi, Javanese and Coptic. Burnell originated with Sir Henry Yule the well-known dictionary of Anglo-Indian words and phrases, Hobson-Jobson.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Burnell

Hobson-Jobson, for those who do not know it, is a delightful collection of South Asian and some other Asian words which have found their way into English, e.g. shampoo, ketchup, bungalow.

Online at:

http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/hobsonjobson/

Paul Rosenberg wrote on June 19, 2007 10:09 PM:

Pleasantly Surprised

10 may not sound like much, but it's an order of magnitude more than I expected.

gregor wrote on June 19, 2007 10:11 PM:

Your ignorance boggles the mind.

Hell, even the officers of Indian Administrative Service, the suceessor to ICS after Indian became indpendent, mostly converse in English.

The view being propagated here that the Sahibs immersed themselves in the Indian culture when they ruled India is just plane wrong. Not even the Anglo-Indians, the progeny of the colonials born, perhaps, of illicit liasons with the natives, and the successive generations of these people, don't speak Hindi or the local language. In fact they look down upon these languages.

I say we institute our own ICS, and send all the anhthropology and philosophy and sociaology and English Lit and Poli Sci graduates as Irqai Civil Service Officers to Iraq to bring order to the natives.

fuck gregor wrote on June 19, 2007 10:28 PM:

Gregor, is the sky yellow in your world like Woody's?

Here we go again, dumbass. Although I mentioned it earlier, by the late 19th-early 20th century, there were actual native Indians in the Indian Civil Service, okay? This is a fact. While they may have spoken English in the office or at the Club as a way of imposing class snobbery their fellow Indians, you would have to be a, well, IDIOT, to claim that they were not "conversant" in Hindi, let alone another one or two languages.

BTW--love the stupid strawman you throw up about Anglo-Indian progeny who "don't speak Hindi or the local language."

Unfortunately, ignoramuses like gregor have been at the helm of the political side of U.S. foreign policy these last six years. I say tell them to go Cheney themselves.

hmm wrote on June 19, 2007 10:32 PM:

Hey gregor, it's actually useful to take your head out of your ass when you have something to say.

Anonymous wrote on June 19, 2007 10:53 PM:

When will they ever learn? An army can conquer but it cannot govern. For that, you need a willing bureaucracy that knows the country, the culture and how to find their way to the toilet without a translator.

urbangreen wrote on June 19, 2007 10:54 PM:

When will they ever learn? An army can conquer but it cannot govern. For that, you need a willing bureaucracy that knows the country, the culture and how to find the way to the toilet without a translator.

JR wrote on June 19, 2007 11:01 PM:

Geez. If Iraq passes a bill for a national language of their own the war would end tomorrow :-)

Andrew J. Lazarus wrote on June 19, 2007 11:35 PM:

That's 3 on a 5-point scale, right? Any bets the number who are 5/5 or even 4/4 is, say, one.

[Aside to Gregor: Even on the net, it's a good idea to provide evidence with links. It's a bad idea to provide unsourced statements that don't prove your point even when true: for example, India has a great many local dialects, and one reason its civil service would use English is to deal with persons who knew native languages but not one in common. (I dare say you will find the same holds true in many African countries.) Oh well, on the Internet no one knows you're really a very smart cockroach.]

Mike Valentine wrote on June 19, 2007 11:55 PM:

Come on Gregor is pulling our legs and pointing out the folly of using a British colonial model as a occupying power is all.

And we got ten native speaking people, see, Bush is right on top of things. No need to worry, no need to worry, no need to worry .........

Code word: sound; as in the sound of one hand clapping.

Mike Valentine wrote on June 19, 2007 11:56 PM:

Come on Gregor is pulling our legs and pointing out the folly of using a British colonial model as a occupying power is all.

And we got ten native speaking people, see, Bush is right on top of things. No need to worry, no need to worry, no need to worry .........

Code word: sound; as in the sound of one hand clapping.

fargo north, decoder wrote on June 20, 2007 12:03 AM:

Mr. Samsa:

I'll just observe that your own command of English orthography leaves something to be desired.

And I'll have lost faith in the disciplines of "anhthropology and philosophy and sociaology and English Lit and Poli Sci" if anyone who actually graduates from a B.A. program from a reputable institution still wants to sign on to your pretty enterprise. This is the year 2007, and our country lost that war, by the latest reckoning, back in 1973.

Or, as we natives like to say in our quaint vernacular, "A Be, chutiya, samajhta hai ki tu mera ek jhaant nikaal satka hai, kya?"

Hobson wrote on June 20, 2007 12:33 AM:

I "just plane" agree with Fargo's analysis of Gregor's linguistic skills.

The point that was being made by those referring to members of the ICS who could walk, chew gum, _and_ speak Urdu all at the same time was not that all "Sahibs" (or "Memsahibs" either) were masters of the languages of the subcontinent. The point was to refute Gregor's proposition that:

"Not a single British member of the Indian
Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or
any of the other Indian languages. And they
ruled for more than 200 years."

_Some_ of them, as it happened, were quite good at those languages.

sarahjones wrote on June 20, 2007 12:33 AM:

Ok, what do we have here so far? The obligatory Right Wing Nut (RWN) shows up with a half-assed lecture on the British 200 year rule in India 200 years ago, (give or take a rule here and a century there). Like most RWNs, he seems to feel that his contribution to a discussion on the number of Arab (doubtfully, but maybe fluent?) speakers ensconced in our current costsmorethantheVatican -like (and maybe gay) Embassy is somehow both relevant and meaningful.

Gregor obviously suffers from that relatively unknown, but absolutely dire disease called Blameliberalsforwhatwehavewrought - nomatterwhat Syndrome.

Congratulations, Gregor. You are only the 125,244,628th RWN to appear here with a half-assed disease and lecture for the misguided liberals. God doesn't even like you.

sarahjones wrote on June 20, 2007 12:35 AM:

Ok, what do we have here so far? The obligatory Right Wing Nut (RWN) shows up with a half-assed lecture on the British 200 year rule in India 200 years ago, (give or take a rule here and a century there). Like most RWNs, he seems to feel that his contribution to a discussion on the number of Arab (doubtfully, but maybe fluent?) speakers ensconced in our current costsmorethantheVatican -like (and maybe gay) Embassy is somehow both relevant and meaningful.

Gregor obviously suffers from that relatively unknown, but absolutely dire disease called Blameliberalsforwhatwehavewrought - nomatterwhat Syndrome.

Congratulations, Gregor. You are only the 125,244,628th RWN to appear here with a half-assed disease and lecture for the misguided liberals. God doesn't even like you.

Philip Mahnken wrote on June 20, 2007 12:41 AM:

Where is April Glaspie now that we need her?

Philip Mahnken wrote on June 20, 2007 12:47 AM:

Where is April Glaspie now that we need her?

gregor wrote on June 20, 2007 12:48 AM:

Security Code: smile

Anonymous wrote on June 20, 2007 12:54 AM:

RE Promises made to Foreign Service Officers who take postings in Iraq: Twenty-five years ago, I apprenticed under a wry and witty guy in Sierra Leone. He often mused aloud that the State Department had talked him into going to Vietnam by assuring him that he could have any post he wanted after that. "There were hundreds of FSOs there," he would laugh. "How in the world did I imagine we'd all get to write our own ticket?" I took it that Freetown was not been anywhere near the top of his list.

HS wrote on June 20, 2007 12:55 AM:

RE Promises made to Foreign Service Officers who take postings in Iraq: Twenty-five years ago, I apprenticed under a wry and witty guy in Sierra Leone. He often mused aloud that the State Department had talked him into going to Vietnam by assuring him that he could have any post he wanted after that. "There were hundreds of FSOs there," he would laugh. "How in the world did I imagine we'd all get to write our own ticket?" I took it that Freetown was not been anywhere near the top of his list.

Hobson wrote on June 20, 2007 1:12 AM:

I "just plane" agree with Fargo's analysis of Gregor's linguistic skills.

The point that was being made by those referring to members of the ICS who could walk, chew gum, _and_ speak Urdu all at the same time was not that all "Sahibs" (or "Memsahibs" either) were masters of the languages of the subcontinent. The point was to refute Gregor's proposition that:

"Not a single British member of the Indian
Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or
any of the other Indian languages. And they
ruled for more than 200 years."

_Some_ of them, as it happened, were quite good at those languages.

MD wrote on June 20, 2007 2:45 AM:

Even the most fluent articulate intelligent sophisticated person says, "I ain't goin to no Iraq."

MD wrote on June 20, 2007 3:02 AM:

Even the most fluent articulate intelligent sophisticated person says, "I ain't goin to no Iraq."

Anonymous wrote on June 20, 2007 4:13 AM:

Come on guys, Gregor is plainly just throwing sarcasm in the mix, of course what is becoming plain to see is that the Onion has nothing on the Bush Malministration, “their Reality has truly lapped our Satire”

Anonymous wrote on June 20, 2007 4:16 AM:

Come on guys, Gregor is plainly just throwing sarcasm in the mix, of course what is becoming plain to see is that the Onion has nothing on the Bush Malministration, “their Reality has truly lapped our Satire”

Fred wrote on June 20, 2007 4:39 AM:

When I served as US Army attache in the US Embassy in Belgrade in 1980, all of the principal officers spoke Serbo-Croatian. This was true of all embassies.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on June 20, 2007 6:01 AM:

The Romans ruled the "world" for 500 years.
The countries they "ruled" participated in the governance, sent Senators with rights to the Senate in Rome, and enjoyed the fruits of their labors.
This is the model to study if you want an Empire. Not a bunch of yahoos who only understand the price of oil and how it benefits them.

vox clamantis in red state wrote on June 20, 2007 6:02 AM:

The Romans ruled the "world" for 500 years.
The countries they "ruled" participated in the governance, sent Senators with rights to the Senate in Rome, and enjoyed the fruits of their labors.
This is the model to study if you want an Empire. Not a bunch of yahoos who only understand the price of oil and how it benefits them.

jayackroyd wrote on June 20, 2007 8:09 AM:

Not a single British member of the Indian
Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or
any of the other Indian languages. And they
ruled for more than 200 years

Uh, yeah. I think that's something of the point here isn't it?

Rayne wrote on June 20, 2007 8:19 AM:

I note that Persian was mentioned upthread, but the question wasn't asked that I can see whether anyone in Baghdad office let alone anywhere in Iraq working for the State Dept. spoke any Persian at all. Might actually be important considering 25% of the country speaks Persian, as do the Iranians who are alleged to cross the border and infiltrate Iraq regularly.

Particularly since the group of people most sympathetic to the U.S. in the earliest days of the war spoke Persian...

doublemint wrote on June 20, 2007 9:08 AM:

Why so many double posts? so many double posts? so many double posts? so many double posts? so many dou

Bluepapa wrote on June 20, 2007 9:49 AM:

After all we have done for Iraq, you would think, by now the people would have made English the official language.

maunga wrote on June 20, 2007 10:01 AM:

jayackroyd ---
You seem normally to have read the posts before you post yourself..... Gregor has been comprehensively shown to be the usual RWN No Nothing.

Our embassy in Baghdad would appear to contain every speaker of any Arabic in the State Dept! As we have heard above, surely they ought all of them to be 5/5s?

maunga wrote on June 20, 2007 10:05 AM:

jayackroyd ---
You seem normally to have read the posts before you post yourself..... Gregor has been comprehensively shown to be the usual RWN No Nothing.

Our embassy in Baghdad would appear to contain every speaker of any Arabic in the State Dept! As we have heard above, surely they ought all of them to be 5/5s?

Sock Puppet of the Great Satan wrote on June 20, 2007 10:32 AM:

"Not a single British member of the Indian
Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or
any of the other Indian languages."

Not true. A fair portion of the ICS came from Trinity College Dublin, which had the only Hindustani language course in the British Isles

pj in jesusland wrote on June 20, 2007 10:34 AM:

FYI, the language Jesus spoke was most likely Aramaic, a Semitic language, like Arabic.

kthejoker wrote on June 20, 2007 10:42 AM:

The inability of the crowd here to recognize the sarcasm in Gregor's post is very telling.

maunga wrote on June 20, 2007 10:46 AM:

kthejoker

No dictionary defines "blatant lies" as sarcasm, I believe.

Raj wrote on June 20, 2007 10:55 AM:

Gregor,

The first grammer in my mother toungue (Khasi - an Indian Language) was written not by another Khasi or a Bengali but by a British ICS officer who was fluent in Bengali and Hindusthani. In fact this officer gave us a written language as until then Khasi had only an oral tradition.
As someone has already mentioned, Ancient Indian history, philisophy, art, architecture were all rediscovered and recorded by the British Officers - not all of them ICS ofcourse. This continued until communications between England and India improved to such an extent that the Memsahibs started coming - and from that time it all went downhill. Since the ladies frowned upon all fraternisation with the natives!

Marrak wrote on June 20, 2007 10:55 AM:

Did Francisco Pizarro speak Inca? Look how well things turned out for them!

iggy wrote on June 20, 2007 11:42 AM:

I guess we will save money by not having subscriptions to any Arabic newpapers

cevrero wrote on June 20, 2007 12:17 PM:

Sorry Mohammy,
No speaky arabic,....you're in the green zone now baby,...Learn how to motherf'n speak English.

Isn't our freedom(aka ignorance) just beautiful.

Anonymous wrote on June 20, 2007 12:23 PM:

Sorry Mohammy,
No speaky arabic,....you're in the green zone now baby,...Learn how to motherf'n speak English.

Isn't our freedom(aka ignorance) just beautiful.

bailey_comus wrote on June 20, 2007 12:33 PM:

When i was a senior in high school i took a class from my headmaster. he'd graduated from Georgetown and applied to the Foreign Service back in the 60s. His wife was from Europe and spoke five (maybe six?) languages. My teacher claimed he was accepted by the FS but conditionally because they didn't think his sophisticated multilingual charming wife could represent the US nearly as well as a gal from Iowa. Flash forward to the late 80s. i heard from a friend who was half iraqi/half tennessee that he'd been turned down by the foreign service as a security risk. He'd studied arabic and arab culture, lived and travelled all over the middle east, did NGO relief work in Africa and the ME - but his paternal family was of the same large clan as Saddam Hussein ergo he was possibly/probably disloyal to the US. He's now a prominent professor and commentator on many blogs etc. If his treatment is any indication of how people are still being vetted by the Foreign Service, then its as much a institutional problem as a Bush problem. (i'm not defending the Bushies and their Sec of State, a Russian 'expert' who can't speak a lick of Russian either.)

i went to the GU SFS but decided not to follow the FSO path. i didn't test, didn't send out resumes in this area - so it's not sour grapes when i say that the classmates who scared me most all were eagerly accepted into the ranks of the FSO. These were the guys who had the same vision of empire we see today. These were the guys who enthusiastically argued that torture was OK. These were the guys who thought support of death squads was just peachy. I think that most were borderline fluent in French & Spanish. These were guys who made all A's (vs my C's) but forgot everything I RECALLED hearing about the dangers of fighting a war against partisans fighting from street to street, building to building in mazelike little towns. These were the guys who thought war was going to be tidy and mechanized.

ok a little wordy, but it beats checking shop drawings this a.m.

Peggy wrote on June 20, 2007 12:56 PM:

Bailey, the story of the rejection of your half-mideastern Arabic speaking friend is very sad. Since 9/11 I've thought that the US should have been able to tap the vast number of Arabic speaking citizens and resident aliens for help with espionage.
Ashcroft decided to do the reverse- throw lots in jail and sow permanently seeds of distrust.

Peggy wrote on June 20, 2007 1:00 PM:

Bailey, the story of the rejection of your half-mideastern Arabic speaking friend is very sad. Since 9/11 I've thought that the US should have been able to tap the vast number of Arabic speaking citizens and resident aliens for help with espionage.
Ashcroft decided to do the reverse- throw lots in jail and sow permanently seeds of distrust.

Peggy wrote on June 20, 2007 1:03 PM:

Bailey, the story of the rejection of your half-mideastern Arabic speaking friend is very sad. Since 9/11 I've thought that the US should have been able to tap the vast number of Arabic speaking citizens and resident aliens for help with foreign affairs and espionage.
Ashcroft decided to do the reverse- throw lots in jail and sow permanently seeds of distrust.

peggy wrote on June 20, 2007 1:10 PM:

Sorrry for the trrriple post

gregor wrote on June 20, 2007 2:07 PM:

I would just like to point
out that the logical position of a liberal
should be to oppose the imperialist
project that is the Iraq occupation.

So if you oppose the basic premise of the
occupation, there is no need for
the liberals to waste their time
in fussing over the details of the management
of the occupation.

Clearly, then, for the liberals
to count the number of
Americans in the embassy who speak Arabic
is akin to death penalty opponents
fussing over the color of the electrical
chair that is used to kill people.

vanya wrote on June 20, 2007 3:09 PM:

As someone upthread pointed out - "fluency in Arabic" is a fairly meaningless measure. Native speakers of Egyptian Arabic have a difficult time communicating at a sophisticated level with Iraqis - that's how divergent the spoken "dialects" of modern Arabic are. Someone who learned Arabic in Morocco will be as lost as a Portuguese speaker wandering around Romania. Mastery of MSA (Modern Standard Arabic) - the written Arabic language - is still very useful, as one could gather a lot of useful intelligence simply monitoring web sites and reading local media but a 3 proficiency is usually not good enough for someone to understand anything beyond, say, basic news items.

pre Amerikkkan wrote on June 20, 2007 3:26 PM:

understanding people and cultures they have built their macro personality inside of need some kind of ability to speak, to communicate with those that live in their culture. just having language skills along has no benefit unless understanding follows.

new worlders had no inclination to listen to native voices 300 years ago, why give them the benefit of that view now?

we are not there to do anything other than invade, destroy and occupy for as long as someone is making money and it is only low class military families that have to pay with their blood.

it only seems obvious.

code: fear

pre Amerikkkan wrote on June 20, 2007 3:30 PM:

understanding people and cultures they have built their macro personality inside of need some kind of ability to speak, to communicate with those that live in their culture. just having language skills along has no benefit unless understanding follows.

new worlders had no inclination to listen to native voices 300 years ago, why give them the benefit of that view now?

we are not there to do anything other than invade, destroy and occupy for as long as someone is making money and it is only low class military families that have to pay with their blood.

it only seems obvious.

code: fear

pre Amerikkkan wrote on June 20, 2007 3:31 PM:

understanding people and cultures they have built their macro personality inside of need some kind of ability to speak, to communicate with those that live in their culture. just having language skills along has no benefit unless understanding follows.

new worlders had no inclination to listen to native voices 300 years ago, why give them the benefit of that view now?

we are not there to do anything other than invade, destroy and occupy for as long as someone is making money and it is only low class military families that have to pay with their blood.

it only seems obvious.

code: fear

Anonymous wrote on June 20, 2007 3:38 PM:

understanding people and cultures they have built their macro personality inside of need some kind of ability to speak, to communicate with those that live in their culture. just having language skills along has no benefit unless understanding follows.

new worlders had no inclination to listen to native voices 300 years ago, why give them the benefit of that view now?

we are not there to do anything other than invade, destroy and occupy for as long as someone is making money and it is only low class military families that have to pay with their blood.

it only seems obvious.

code: fear

Lisa wrote on June 20, 2007 4:32 PM:

Re Arabic dialects: Is it really true that Arabs from different parts of the ME can't understand each other? Then how do they have Arab League meetings - they use interpreters? How do people in Lebanon or Morocco enjoy Egyptian singers and TV shows, which I hear are popular throughout the ME?

Not a snarky question. I really want to know.

John wrote on June 20, 2007 9:27 PM:

Lisa,

I am a fluent speaker of Moroccan Arabic and my Modern Standard Arabic is decent, although not as good as I'd like it to be. Moroccan, Algerian, and to a lesser extent Tunisian dialects are mutually understandable. When I am in any of these countries, I can speak fluently on any subject that people care to talk about for any length of time. But the further East I travel in the region the more misunderstandings I have with locals. The dialects are transferable enough that I can understand what they want to communicate to me and I can communicate to them, with varying degrees of success depending on the country. I understand other Egyptians pretty well because in Morocco Egyptian movies and television shows are always on, and after watching so many of them you slowly start to get the hang of it. They wouldn't be able to understand me, though. Most native Arabic speakers pick up Egyptian Arabic this way. Egypt used to be the most widely understood dialect because of its monopoly on film and television production in the Arabic-speaking world, but more recently, other dialects are starting to be more widely understood because of the relatively new(since about 1996 or 1997) satellite TV networks that are transmitted throughout the Arab speaking world. So you'll now have Moroccans and Libyans watching Syrian soap operas or Saudi game shows.

Formal communications such as speeches, newspapers, television, and radio are all done in Modern Standard Arabic. If two people from differing countries meet with dialects that aren't similar (If a Lebanese met a Syrian, they would understand each other even though each would have disdain for the other's accent, but if a Lebanese met a Yemeni, they would have problems), they will sometimes speak in Standard Arabic (which requires several years of intensive study even for a native speaker, thus the high illiteracy rates you often see in the region) and if that isn't working they will choose a common second language, like French or English.

And it's my understanding that to be considered fluent by the D.O.S., you have to be proficient in at least 2 different Arabic dialects as well as having reading and writing proficiency in Modern Standard Arabic...at least, that's what some people have told me. If I'm wrong on that, please correct me.

I also find it to be the case that people in D.C. don't really give a rip if you're fluent in Arabic or not, despite all this hubbub you hear in the media about the dearth of speakers. It hasn't helped me land a job.

'As You Know' Bob wrote on June 23, 2007 4:19 PM:

It's sort of interesting that one person chimes up to support the Bush junta's ignorance with

"You guys are completely off base here.

"Not a single British member of the Indian
Civil Service was conversant in Hindi or
any of the other Indian languages. And they
ruled for more than 200 years."

Posted by: gregor

- which claim - like every other defense of the bush Junta's policies, is actually an easily refuted lie, one that demonstrates only the speaker's ignorance and/or mendacity.

What's even more interesting is that the SECOND falsehood is completely overshadowed: direct British rule in India was less than 100 years, not "over 200 years".

ltuifo makughqji wrote on August 4, 2007 5:25 PM:

aqzh zcxvwdag fwkvxc adsn mhng tuwmchv rnvg