Comments on: Who was that masked man?

By: PapaBear

PapaBear — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 16:06:44 +0000

We will wind up in a situation where the interpreters we have left do not fear the terrorists. Hopefully, the reason will not be that they don’t fear because they are double agents for the terrorists.

By: goesh

goesh — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 14:13:21 +0000

Word should spread pretty fast and create a real shortage of interpretors. Sounds like PC creep is already in action in anticipation of an Obama administration – Lifers ( in contrast to career men) with fecal matter on their noses will also create a shortage of NCOs real fast and junior Officers with talent who will vacate to the private sector where talent is appreciated and rewarded.

By: Response39

Response39 — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 10:28:09 +0000

I’m concerned that Lt.Col. Stover is being naive. What he says is true for all regular US military. Ask any Delta, Seal, Green Beret, or other elite counter-insurgency unit about their policies and you’ll get a different story. Perhaps he should remember that he’s just a visitor and that the interpreters live there whether there are US troops in country or not.

By: NahnCee

NahnCee — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:50:45 +0000

If they’re gonna wear a mask, make it a Mickey Mouse one — something that hides the face but is *not* scarey, intimidating or macho. Maybe a Snow White or Cinderella or Tinker Bell one.

If an interpreter gets issued a Pinocchio mask, he should start cleaning up his act because maybe people aren’t depending on him like he might wish they would.

I can’t help but feel that the interpreters may get off on a power trip of being with the Big Boys, and the locals know they’re at his mercy. Wearing a terrorist-looking mask would be part of that power trip, so while I can understand them not wanting to show their faces, maybe, they shouldn’t be allowed to power-trip behind scary masks.

By: Mad Fiddler

Mad Fiddler — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:13:36 +0000

It is not unheard of for SWAT team members to wear masks for the purpose of obscuring their identities in the continental U.S. Is that unprofessional?

It is customary for many police departments that officers’ personal telephone numbers are not publicly available. Does that mark them as cowards?

It is a grotesque distortion of logic to claim that the obligations of the interpreters are or should be identical to those of U.S. soldiers. They are private Iraqi citizens hired without any guarantee of the sanctuary or protection of U.S. military for themselves or their families.

By: Wadeusaf

Wadeusaf — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 03:00:07 +0000

Their’s is a strange mixture of old tribal and new rational cutures. I would not have stated the new policy in an e mail, if I announced it at all. It is what it is, but it is not ours to say if things are safe enough to go forward with this across the board. Is this the actual state of affairs in Iraq or is this just wishful thinking? It is hard to tell from the story because in only one sentence dose it give a time line. The on terp who was asked in September to remove his mask. At one time this was a death sentence for the terps and their families, many of who have now moved to the US for that very reason.

In my gut, I think the Army has made a very unprofessional decision.

By: anton

anton — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:25:38 +0000

If they don’t need masks for safety why does my local SWAT team always wear masks? Everybody knows they are cops and they don’t wear masks for day-today street operations. Because the people they are SWATting are bad a%$es and might come for them or families.
Let the interpeter decide, the brave ones will set the tone and in a pride/shame culture such as Iraq the others will follow. The weak-kneed will quit, but did we really want them anyways?

By: Mike Sylwester

Mike Sylwester — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 02:02:31 +0000

Correction:
If you need four interpreters, and you have five interpreters, and one of the five is terrified that his family is being threatened constantly, then which one of the five will you let go?

By: Mike Sylwester

Mike Sylwester — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:59:14 +0000

The value of an interpreter has several components, which include language skill, intelligence, experience, personality, personal availability, discipline and trustworthiness.

Apparently, the US military in Iraq feels that it now can afford to be much more selective in its employment of Iraqis as interpreters. Those who feel extremely threatened are security risks. If you need four interpreters, and you have five interpreters, and one of the four is terrified that his family is being threatened constantly, then which one of the five will you let go?

The interpreters who are being dismissed have promising futures. When LtCol Stover says they can seek alternative employment, he is not being merely cold-hearted. Indeed, they really can seek alternative employment and probably will acquire good jobs. Now they have valuable experience, skills, contacts and recommendations because of the time they did work for the US military. And their new jobs will be much less dangerous for them and their families.

The war in Iraq has ended, and an economic and modernization boom is beginning. Some Iraqis who have been working as interpreters for US military combat units will have to transition to the new opportunities.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 01:37:58 +0000

Interesting. Last month, I received a letter from my state agency informing me how to process Iraqi immigrants with “special immigrant visas”. These visas, called SIV, are being issued to Iraqi translators and interpreters. The US will admit 5000 of them each year, along with eligible dependents. It would seem that the US State Dept knows the danger these people are in, but the military does not? Idiocy.