Slashdot Mirror


DARPA Funds Game To Teach Arabic To Army

finnhart writes "According to a [free reg. req.] New York Times article, DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) has funded a project at the University of Southern California's School of Engineering to create a 'virtual camp' in which US soldiers can learn to speak Arabic, as well as learn local customs: 'All discussions with the villagers will have to be conducted in Arabic, and Sergeant Smith must comport himself with the utmost awareness of local customs so as not to arouse hostility. If successful, he will be paving the way for the rest of his unit to begin reconstruction work in the village'."

82 comments

  1. Google Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Virtual Camp Trains Soldiers in Arabic, and More

    That's virtual camp, not cave.

    1. Re:Google Link by saden1 · · Score: 1

      Mates, it's a ploy, speaking Arabic is a prerequisite for invasion. Iran and Syria here we come.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
    2. Re:Google Link by johannesg · · Score: 1
      I'm happy at least somebody noticed. To learn sufficient arabic to make conversation takes years. What does the US needs arabic-speaking soldiers for in a couple of years?

      This is not just a case of "being prepared just in case". It also sends a strong political signal that other arabic-speaking countries are on the list for invasion.

    3. Re:Google Link by justanyone · · Score: 2, Informative


      Ummmm... I'm sorry to disappoint, but Iranians speak Farsi, not arabic.

      To Quote from the Wikipedia article:

      It should be noted that human languages, and the alphabet used to represent those languages in written form, are two different concepts and alphabets are not intrinsic to human languages. As such, Persian and Arabic are two entirely different languages from different linguistic families, with different phonology and grammar.

      Persian adds four letters to the Arabic alphabet for its use, due to the fact the four sounds that exist in Persian do not exist in Arabic.

    4. Re:Google Link by saden1 · · Score: 1

      I know this mate, but the public at large does indeed understand Arabic quite well. As in most Islamic nations all the general words and phrases are taught to kids.

      --

      -----
      One is born into aristocracy, but mediocrity can only be achieved through hard work.
  2. Yay! by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

    Now I can talk to that muslim chick at school!

    --
    Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    1. Re:Yay! by NanoGator · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Now I can talk to that muslim chick at school!"... and discover Arabic slang for "loser"!

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Yay! by ForestGrump · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Arabic slang for "loser" is "fashel".
      -Grump...it hurts to be called "fashel" =P

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    3. Re:Yay! by metrazol · · Score: 1

      Actually, we've only included "Jerk!" so far, but I'll mention "Loser" at the next meeting.

      Yes, I work on this project, and yes, I get paid to make and play video games.

      Worship me.

      --
      "Life's funny sometimes." "And sometimes it isn't." --Cat's Cradle
    4. Re:Yay! by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      glad i made a difference in your project...

      and yes, i believe it is authentic, i asked a muslim girl how to say "loser"...and maybe thinks i'm one..but tolerates me because I'm close to her roomate.

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    5. Re:Yay! by gruntvald · · Score: 1

      Better not - her brother or dad might kill her as an "Honor killing" for talking to an infidel.

    6. Re:Yay! by AnwerB · · Score: 1

      Yep, fashel=loser. Oddly enough, it has the same connotations and nuances in Arabic as it does in English.

      There is no exact word for Jerk (as far as I know) in Arabic, nor Nerd, Geek, or Dork...

      R.S. IAAA (I am an Arab) :)

    7. Re:Yay! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't help if that girl is Persian or Turkish or Pakistani, etc.

  3. Learning a language is not that easy by Dr.+Weird · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Is it really possible to teach the soldiers enough Arabic -- basically in their free time -- to communicate with the "villagers." Seriously, people spend years studying foreign languages, and usually only come out with mild fluency.

    Admittedly, a few words can be learned, enabling simple communication. If this is all that they have in mind, this is perhaps a feasible objective. But the quote makes it sound as if the soldiers will be truly communicating in the language. The article hedges it a bit more, focusing on problem specific communication, but I don't think it is fairly labeled 'discussion.' That is, I doubt that there will be very many fruitful 'discussions' *cough* interrogations *cough* if they must occur in Arabic.

    Anyway, what the hell is a virtual 'cave'? 'Camp' is the term used in the article, and I still don't understand what either word has to do with things. Help!

    ~Dr. Weird~

    1. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Well, here's one example of a virtual cave.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    2. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by aixou · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is it really possible to teach the soldiers enough Arabic -- basically in their free time -- to communicate with the "villagers." Seriously, people spend years studying foreign languages, and usually only come out with mild fluency.

      Never doubt the power of knowing just a little bit of another language. It's the thought that counts. Yeah sure, our soldiers aren't gonna become fluent, but it would show the Iraqis that the soldiers actually do have some respect for the culture and customs, and aren't mindless killing machines.

      If you're ever abroad and happen to strike up a conversation with a stranger, bring up some obscure local custom of theirs (e.g. perhaps their is a local festival taking place, or a type of food made only in the area), and you'll be amazed at how excited they might become just at the fact that you know of it. We don't even think of such things here because America is so gigantic and omnipresent, and almost everyone has a cusory knowledge of American culture.

      (btw, I'm assuming you're American... if you're not, then :P)

    3. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by Dr.+Weird · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Never doubt the power of knowing just a little bit of another language.

      I agree wholeheartedly with this. It's just that the article oversells it. "Discussions" and all... makes it sound like they are going to chat about Bertrand Russell and Dewey over a cuppa and scone.

      Start silly personal story It reminds me of a time I was in Italy for a couple weeks. Knowing virtually no Italian, I mainly got by on butchered French and the fact that many/most of the Italians there spoke English. A handy bit of custom to know: Pepperoni on a pizza is not a salami, or other kind of meat. Rather, upon ordering a pepporoni pizza, one receives a pizza with peppers! Beautiful, and highly recommended.

      I am an American, and have been fortunate enough to spend some time abroad. I thoroughly enjoyed the local flavors. Not to mention the humiliation that most foreigners know at least as much about U.S. politics as I do (and much more about U.S. sports!). :-D

      ~Dr. Weird~ (P.S. Where are you?)

    4. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by Andy+Mitchell · · Score: 5, Funny

      Obviously if you only have a short while in which to learn a foreign language its vital to learn just a few key phrases.

      However, my experience of trying to learn foreign languages is that teachers always teach you the most inappropriate phrases first. For example, the first things I learnt to say in French was, "I speak French". Not much use being able to wonder round saying "I speak French" and nothing else.

      Latter our French teacher seemed to have some obsession with the opening and closing of windows. While this was, at that point, a complete waste of time it did prove to be rather useful some 15 or so years latter when faced with a copy of French MS Windows. I'm sure the curriculum has been adjusted to ensure that no mention of windows is now made.

      So I suspect the US soldiers will be trained with the Arabic version of the following useful phrases:

      • I speak Arabic
      • My name is sergeant bob.
      • What time is it?
      • Where is the nearest supermarket?
      When more useful phrases might be:
      • I'm sorry, I don't speak Arabic.
      • Sorry, I thought you were Bin Laden. The doctor is on the way.
      • I'm sorry we had to deploy tactical nuclear weapons to remove militants from the local mosque.
      • Have you seen any weapons off mass destruction?
      • No, not our weapons of mass destruction.
    5. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by El_Ge_Ex · · Score: 1

      the CAVE(tm) is virtual reaity implementation where its walls and/or floor and ceiling are projection surface to allow the user to see a virtual environment.

      More info:

      -B

    6. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by bluGill · · Score: 1

      Varies from person to person. I know one person who have been speaking English only for the last 20 years (might have went home a couple times in there but nothing significant) and still has problems. His wife has a funny accent, but otherwise speaks perfectly. (They are from Korea). I know one other guy who can learn a new language in just a few weeks. (after 17 it is really easy to add a new one though).

      Most people I know do just fine after a year of studying, or just a few months of studying it in an area where it is native. The soldiers are in a native area, give them a boost so they can use it, and at least some will catch on quick. Others will never catch on, but they will all know who is the expert and put that person in the communication positions. (and when required they can all muddle through)

    7. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by Eivind · · Score: 1
      You don't need much knowledge to improve relations.

      It's a bit like when I was visiting Quebec. I have a vocabulary in French of maybe 200 words and hopeless pronounciation.

      Still, it wasn't hard to notice that people reacted very differently when I approached them with a simple question in French, rather than automatically assuming everyone speaks english fluently.

      Even if they understood nothing else of my french, they understood one thing: He's actually trying. He *recognises* that he's in a french-speaking area, and that speaking french is the sensible thing to do.

      From discussing this with the friends I was visiting there, this alone made me different than 95% of the non-locals which visit there.

    8. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and "Somebody set us up the bomb?" .. sorry, probably very un-PC

    9. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by microTodd · · Score: 1

      Does it really take "years" to learn a foreign language? I only lived in Germany for a year, but by the end I was able to speak enough to get around. The international students who come to the US seem to pick up English in only a few months. Granted, its not necessarily "fluent" but its enough to get by.

      Besides, for US soliders (note: not intelligence, just the standard security-patrol GI) s/he only needs enough to basically communicate with the Iragi nationals s/he comes into contact with on the street. That's not a requirement for fluency, just the same amount a tourist would need.

      But perhaps I should RTFA before posting....

      --
      "You cannot find out which view is the right one by science in the ordinary sense." - C.S. Lewis on Intelligent Design
    10. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by finnhart · · Score: 1

      Ooops, that "cave" reference was a misread on my part - the screenshot text said "cafe" but I read it as "cave". And I thought that was just so weird...

    11. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      German is one of the easiest languages to learn for an English speaker (along with French and Spanish). if it's a learning curve you're after, go for Finnish or Russian.

    12. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      However, my experience of trying to learn foreign languages is that teachers always teach you the most inappropriate phrases first.

      Amen to that. The only thing I can remember from my high school spanish course is "La manzana roja, tan bueno y deliciosa". I might have spelled something wrong, but it consists of talking about how good and delicious a red apple is. Talking about how to find the bathroom would be almost infinitely more useful. Or perhaps, an American embassy?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    13. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by Deflagro · · Score: 1

      I'm fully bilingual in French and English and can understand Spanish even though i've had no formal intro. I picked up swedish and Russian and understand some itallian and portuguese.
      I think that if you are bilingual in a romantic language, the rest comes easy.
      I find german hard because of the freakin grammar! Also, Arabic is hard to read and write becuase of the accents and such.
      I checked it out, was a bit much.. not like japanese, that's actually fun to learn.

      --
      Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
    14. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by justanyone · · Score: 1

      I found that knowing just a few words helped tremendously:
      Hello, Excuse me/sorry, Thank you / thanks very much, goodbye, yes, no, beautiful, how much, where?

      After a while, people would ask a yes/no question, i'd say "Ya Da Si Oui Yes" as a runtogetherword like "yahdahseeweeyes" or "No Nyet". Likewise, the excuse me phrase became: "Scoozee" almost everywhere and "Eezveneetchyeh" (pardon the bad transliterations) as these were widely understood.

      How about other phrases, though:
      • We're very sorry, but we have to search your house/car/pockets for security reasons
      • We apologize for causing you inconvenience or pain, but we have a job to do
      • We are only here to search for weapons and explosives.
      • We do not wish to harm anyone
      • Please move slowly and keep your hands where we can see them so we know we are safe
      • We hate surprises;
      • Please calm down
      • We will be done soon
      • Please tell us if anyone else is in this house
      • If you are worried about your safety, please remember we are worried about both your safety and our safety.
      • We don't want to cause any trouble here, we want to help.
      • Please talk very slowly and point at things you're talking about.
      • I am not deaf. I just do not speak arabic. Please wait for my translator to arrive.
    15. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by bckrispi · · Score: 1
      over a cuppa and scone

      What language is that? :)

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    16. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the US military, so a more appropriate phrase to learn would be:

      "Yeehaw, Bubba just gave me this new gun. I'm gonna test it on you A-rabs, so start a-runnin'".

    17. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by tepples · · Score: 1

      What language is that?

      Given the Google results for scone, I assume "a cuppa and scone" is from English spoken in areas that consume a lot of tea, especially within the Commonwealth. A "cuppa" is a "cup of" tea, and a "scone" (which apparently rhymes wiht "pawn") is a type of pastry.

    18. Re:Learning a language is not that easy by magefile · · Score: 1

      It does have the advantage that it uses the roman alphabet ... but have you ever heard an American butcher an umlaut? Or say, "where is the bench" rather than "where is the bank" because the gender changed the sentence?

      I spent a year in Germany when I was 5, and became fluent. I have spent several years in H.S. classes picking it up again since then, and Americans suck at it. German is not an easy language, despite the fact that English is a Germanic language.

  4. Re:Great by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "Another reason for ignorance"

    So.. it's not a tool that'll teach people how to interact with people from far-away lands, it's a tool that allows people to be lazy...? What, are we all going to cancel our trips to that side of the planet?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  5. Re:Great by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 1

    No no, he plainly demonstrated the ignorance he was describing.

  6. fable by celeritas_2 · · Score: 0

    they should recruit the writers of Fable (uber-cool XBOX game to be out...somtime) to teach them that pulling shit like what happened at the prisons has an effect later in life.

    --
    -- Checking emails and kicking cheats `till the day I die.
  7. not their job by BigChigger · · Score: 2, Funny

    the Army's job is to blow stuff up - not "rebuild villages"

    BC

    1. Re:not their job by servognome · · Score: 2

      If you don't rebuild, how can you blow it up again?

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
  8. CAVE? by cyranose · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I presume by "virtual cave" the poster refers to the CAVE (CAVE Audio Video Environment), which is essentially a small room where most or all walls show computer-generated imagery (rather than using, say, a head-mounted display). I imagine USC has one or two for research purposes.

    However, there's nothing in the article, the press release, or associated video clip to indicate this has anything to do with the language training. It all seems to be happening on a standard computer monitor. I'm a big advocate of CAVEs for all sorts of things, but I'm not sure what price-performance advantage it would have for language training.

    1. Re:CAVE? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I am pulling this entirely out of my ass but I would think that increasing immersion would be a good way to help train reflexes. For instance, playing cheaterstrike doesn't help you learn to shoot an M16 (or whatever carbine is in that piece of tripe, probably the M4?) but it does help you learn where to look and aim by reflex - but imagine what it would be like if you played with a light gun which mimicked a real firearm, which is to say it would be heavy and have recoil. Given a realistic enough prop, you could learn to shoot people without expending any ammunition and without running any risk beyond falling over and hitting your head or something like that.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:CAVE? by cyranose · · Score: 1

      So if the Iraqi merchant you're interrogating shoots off a bit of witty repartee, you'll know which way to roll and aim your gun?

    3. Re:CAVE? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well I know the example I used was violent but most people have real problems with visualization of substantially nonreal scenes. I've been reading since I was two and a half years old or so, and playing a broad assortment of video games since not long after, and have just always done that sort of thinking, but most people aren't that into it. They might be greatly assisted by a full-immersion system, or as close as we get today.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  9. Oh, for cryin' out loud by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1, Troll

    So here comes the first massively politically incorrect, flame me back into the stone age comment of the night.

    I've about had it with this whole "Ooh, let's tiptoe around the Arabs" thing. You know what? The Arabs do not live on an Arab planet. The Muslims do not live on a Muslim planet. I'm sure there are lots of folks in both groups who wish it were so, but it just ain't.

    When's the last time you heard about the Army training its soldiers in the customs of the Chinese so we don't deeply offend Chinese people? Or the Dutch? Do we tiptoe around the Dutch? Or the Argentines, or the Poles, or the Russians, or the South Africans? Do we all get sent to special sensitivity training workshops to avoid pissing off the Uzbeks?

    Fuck, no. Nor do the Chinese, the Dutch, the Argentines, the Poles, the Russians, the South Africas, or the Uzbeks worry themselves sick over the possibility of offending us.

    The Arabs live on a big blue planet with lots of other kinds of people. Some of them know and respect Arab customs. Some don't. The sooner they, as a culture, learn to deal with this fact, the better for everybody.

    Colossal waste of money this is. Teach 'em Arabic, definitely. And Farsi and Pashto. But don't waste a red cent teaching 'em how to kowtow in the suks. The Arabs are just gonna have to learn to deal.

    --

    I write in my journal
    1. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by Ommadawn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yet we expect them to tiptoe around us..

      It's been said that an armed populace is a polite populace. Why? because they're armed, and won't take shit. Well, that's what we got over there.

      Don't like the American way? Most people would say go somewhere else. This *is* somewhere else. They apparently like their customs the way they are.

      Why don't we kowtow to these other nationalities? because they're not lobbing airliners at buildings.

      Maybe we can catch more with sugar than vinegar..

      --
      Restrictions are prohibited. Be well, get better.
    2. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by Pluvius · · Score: 1

      When's the last time you heard about the Army training its soldiers in the customs of the Chinese so we don't deeply offend Chinese people? Or the Dutch? Do we tiptoe around the Dutch? Or the Argentines, or the Poles, or the Russians, or the South Africans? Do we all get sent to special sensitivity training workshops to avoid pissing off the Uzbeks?

      We aren't currently at war with any of those nations, nor are we forcefully occupying any of them.

      The Arabs are just gonna have to learn to deal.

      And we should learn to deal with the two-soldier-a-day death rate in Iraq, right?

      Rob

    3. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by swillden · · Score: 2, Informative

      But don't waste a red cent teaching 'em how to kowtow in the suks. The Arabs are just gonna have to learn to deal.

      Special Forces operate in very small, mobile, independent units, typically six men per. Because of their small size they have to cross-train very heavily, so that each man in the unit can do every other man's job in a pinch, because they really don't have anyone else on whom they can rely.

      When a six-man SF team approaches a 2000-person village needing food, information or shelter, or with the plan to befriend, arm, train and lead the villagers as a counterinsurgency force, they damn well *do* have to learn to kowtow and to get along effectively. Offending the villagers will at the very least compromise their mission and it could get them all dead.

      This sort of education isn't about political correctness, it's as coldly practical as weapons training.

      (I speak from moderate knowledge; I was a member of Charlie company, 19th SF Group, Utah Army National Guard, for my last year of high school. I moved to the Air Force because I realized the amount of training I would have had to do for my SF job (26 months) was more than I was willing to invest in a part-time job. That plus the fact that there were some seriously scary people in my unit, and I didn't want to end up like them.)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by Dr.+Weird · · Score: 1
      You know, I was going to ignore this. I do not agree with your argument at all, but lets skip that; I want to try to make another point.

      It isn't just about not offending the "Arabs." If a U.S. soldier offends, say, an armed villager, do you think it will have good consequences? No, only damaged reputations and, worse, physical injury for our soldiers.

      Say a U.S. soldier ejects from his fighter jet, landing in a somewhat peaceful village. Suppose, too, that he is in dire need of water, medecine. Maybe a radio, or telephone. Maybe a bathroom. Whatever the need is -- he will be relying on the Arabs' hospitality -- and a knowledge of Arabic will be only to the U.S. soldiers' advantage.

      At the very least, it will help the reconstruction proceed quicker by allowing some interaction between the natives and the U.S. soldiers involved in the reconstruction. I doubt you would support the reconstruction, but it is inevitable. Pragmatically, it must be done (the soldier follows the politician's orders) -- and the quickest way to get the U.S. soldiers out of trouble is to get them out of there: to facilitate the reconstruction.

      As I said in the beginning, I think there are lots of good reasons for U.S. soldiers to learn basics of the Arabic language, in order to protect and help them. I didn't even touch on the humanitarian or intelligence-gathering reasons for learning Arabic. But even ignoring this, this is the best course of action to protect our troops.

      ~Dr. Weird~

    5. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 1, Troll

      yet we expect them to tiptoe around us..

      Hardly. When's the last time you had an Arab cab driver? He barely knew the language and smelled like the underside of a Indian family's hide-a-bed, didn't he? Did you assemble a homemade bomb and blow it up outside a police station? No, you fucking dealt with it.

      They apparently like their customs the way they are.

      And they're completely 100% free to practice them. If they want to go home and smear goat entrails all over themselves and listen to Wayne Newton 45's on 78, that's their business. But if they expect us to do the same, they're in for a disappointment.

      Maybe we can catch more with sugar than vinegar..

      Fuck that. Seriously: fuck that. The whole problem with the Jihadist culture--Arab, Muslim, whatever any individual participant happens to be--is that they can't deal with pluralism. They can't deal with people who don't want to grow beards as long as their fist or who don't want to pray to Mecca or who don't want to cover their wives' faces in public. So they blow shit up. Their culture is broken, and the last thing we need to do is perpetuate the idea that a broken culture is just fine, no problems, welcome to the modern world.

      Because it is a pluralist world, we--non-Muslims, non-Arabs, non-whatever--are not going to do things their way. That's because we're free. All of us, fundamentally, are free. That means I don't have to do shit the way they want me to. Laws, yes. I have to obey laws. But customs? Not my problem. If they don't like that, tough shit. Let 'em grouse about the infidel barbarians and then get over it, just like we have to when one of them drives our cab or runs our convenience store or joins our graduate research project or marries into our family or becomes our boss or whatever. When people from two different cultures have to interrelate, they have a responsibility to be accepting and tolerant. This one-way tolerance shit is for the birds.

      Me? I'd really like it if Arab men would learn that aftershave is not the same as a bath. But am I getting my wish? No way, man. It's a free planet, and if they don't wanna get friendly with Mr. Soap, there's nothing I can do about it. I'm polite as I can be, I may occasionally complain about it in the third person. That's all I expect of anybody. Be polite, complain when I'm not around, just generally deal.

      I don't suck your cock, you don't suck my cock. We just tolerate each other and then go home.

      Why this isn't blindingly obvious to everybody is a question that will always baffle me.

      --

      I write in my journal
    6. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 0, Troll

      Okay, if we're talking about SF, that's a different matter. SF units often have to immerse in the local environment and work closely with indigenous forces. In that case, it's their job to make friends. In that particular context, I'll take back everything I said.

      But the whole idea of giving every soldier a crash-course in how not to piss off the natives--or, as I have personal hands-on experience, giving every journalist who goes in-country such a crash-course--is bogus. It's not our job to become Arabs or Pashtuns or Muslims or whatever. It's their job, as human beings, to tolerate us.

      We need less emphasis on sensitivity for the nasty, dirty infidel barbarians and more on tolerance for the natives. Just because you've never seen a clean-shaven white Christian person before, Mohammed, doesn't mean it's okay for you to freak out and try to blow him up.

      --

      I write in my journal
    7. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know nobody else agrees, but it's nice to see someone every once in a while stepping up and actually voicing his/her mind on matters of politics. It seems that lately everyone has been worried about stepping on the toes of others. You're a breath of fresh air.

    8. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the whole idea of giving every soldier a crash-course in how not to piss off the natives--or, as I have personal hands-on experience, giving every journalist who goes in-country such a crash-course--is bogus. It's not our job to become Arabs or Pashtuns or Muslims or whatever. It's their job, as human beings, to tolerate us.

      Nonsense.

      If you invite me round to your house for a dinner party, and when I arrive you discover to your horror that I barely speak English, it is your duty as a human to tolerate that and do your best to put up with me. Shooting me would clearly be ridiculous.

      If I break into your house in the middle of the night with an axe, however, I suspect there isn't a jury in the land which wouldn't consider shooting me a reasonable response.

      Remember, our troops in Iraq are an occupying army. While some Iraqis welcomed the invasion, the fact remains that we did invade rather than being invited, and the Iraqis would now like us to leave, thank you very much, it's nice that Saddam's gone but now they'd prefer to run their own country if we don't mind.

      In those circumstances, it's perfectly reasonable for them to resent the presence of our soldiers, and it can even be argued that armed resistance is a reasonable response from those who supported Saddam's regime - evil, perhaps, but reasonable.

      That places the onus firmly on us to be as polite as possible. Going back to the analogy, if I break into your house and sit calmly on your sofa, you'll probably call the cops but you won't feel the need to shoot me dead. If I'm brandishing a gun and shouting at you in a language you don't understand, you might just see the situation a bit differently.

    9. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by Rayonic · · Score: 1
      If I break into your house in the middle of the night with an axe, however, I suspect there isn't a jury in the land which wouldn't consider shooting me a reasonable response.


      Oh yeah, like the Iraqi people were able to band together and send us a letter saying "Save Us!" Or maybe Saddam would let them start a petition?

      Stop pretending that you're in touch with the common Iraqi, or that you have any knowledge of what was going on there.
    10. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by swillden · · Score: 1

      Okay, if we're talking about SF, that's a different matter.

      The first sentence of the article:

      In a dusty valley in southern Lebanon, "Sgt. John Smith" of the Special Forces scans the scene in front of him.

      and later:

      The Tactical Language Project, as it is called, is being developed at U.S.C.'s Center for Research in Technology for Education, in cooperation with the Special Operations Command.

      There's also a quote from the project manager saying that he'd like to give the course to all soldiers stationed in a foreign country but he's clearly interested in growing his project and he's not the one that will make such decisions.

      It's not our job to become Arabs or Pashtuns or Muslims or whatever. It's their job, as human beings, to tolerate us.

      OTOH, if we're in their country, against their will, it seems like a very good idea to avoid antagonizing them any more than is strictly necessary. Even where our forces have been invited in, we're often on thin ice and a few minor incidents can have severe repercussions.

      In practice, even non-SF soldiers occasionally have to deal with people in situations where its in the US's best interest to avoid antagonizing people. Not for reasons of political correctness, but because it's the most effective way to get the job done.

      You can argue that they should learn to deal with us, but that sort of theoretical argument doesn't mean squat when they decide they don't want to deal with us and kick our forces out of their country. Of course, I personally would actually prefer that we got our forces out of most of the foreign countries they're in (not Iraq and Afghanistan), but that's a separate issue. If the civilian leadership decides that our military should have a presence in various places, it's up to the military leadership to do what must be done to make sure we can fulfill that mission. And that includes not pissing off the locals.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    11. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by demachina · · Score: 1

      You certainly hit a new low in this thread, Twirp. Now you are engaged in rampant stereotyping bordering on racism.

      Any army engaged in an extended occupation should be training its soldiers in basic cultural etiquette unless their goal is to tick off and alienate the locals.

      I hate to break it to you but you shot down your own screed when you agreed special forces should have this kind of training, but for some bizarre reason not regular Army. Those regular Army soldiers are walking patrols in the streets, trying to establish ties with locals and especially to inquire intelligence. Their likelihood of success dramatically improves if they know social customs, how to communicate politely and how to refrain from being insulting.

      An even better justification for this kind of training for Arab cultures comes when soldiers break in to homes at night looking for insurgents and weapons. If they are culturally aware they will refrain from touching women in the house unless they have to. If they are cultural morons they will manhandle them and they will most likely spawn a vendetta among all the men in the house which will lead to new recruits for the insurgency, which means potentially more American casualties.

      If you want to insure you lose a war against an insurgency send in a bunch of American teenagers who insult and infuriate everyone they come in to contact with.

      --
      @de_machina
    12. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by demachina · · Score: 1

      "Oh yeah, like the Iraqi people were able to band together and send us a letter saying "Save Us!" Or maybe Saddam would let them start a petition?"

      If you recall recent history, right after the first gulf war, the U.S. goaded the Kurds and Shias in to revolting against Saddam in the hopes they would overthrow him. They fell for it, did it, and put up a giant sign saying "Save Us!" when Saddam started massacring them for armed revolt. George W.'s father and Dick Cheney, then looked the other way. Its odd that Saddam is facing charges for the brutally in putting down an armed revolt. I'm inclined to say George W's father and Dick Cheney are the two most responsible for those two massacres. Either they shouldn't have provoked the revolts in the first place or they should have given them air support when they did.

      --
      @de_machina
    13. Re:Oh, for cryin' out loud by magefile · · Score: 1

      Arab culture is not broken - try reading about the Ottoman empire, or about modern Turkey.

  10. Wake up baby from your asleep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Islamic Militant Bukkake Kitten Islamic Militant Bukkake Kitten Islamic Militant Bukkake Kitten

  11. Don't vote for Bush by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Look at the title, "DARPA Funds Game To Teach Arabic To Army". What is U.S. becoming?

    Ever since Bush became the head, the body has been leaning toward middle eastern interests in every direction. Ok, where are the next generation Iraq M*A*S*H and Gulf War vet A-Team shows. We got video games teaching Arabic. Hello, aren't we supposed to be out of the middle east by now.

    1. Re:Don't vote for Bush by servognome · · Score: 1

      Ok, where are the next generation Iraq M*A*S*H and Gulf War vet A-Team shows
      We have CNN... its even better.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    2. Re:Don't vote for Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ever since Bush became the head, the body has been leaning toward middle eastern interests in every direction. Ok, where are the next generation Iraq M*A*S*H and Gulf War vet A-Team shows. We got video games teaching Arabic. Hello, aren't we supposed to be out of the middle east by now.

      The U.S. and the U.N. (remember them?) have been meddling (for better or for worse) in the middle east since the end of WWII with the formation of Israel. The U.S. (and you better damn well believe) and the rest of the world has been dealing with O.P.E.C. (Oil Producing Exporting Countries) since its formation (which is of course located largely in the middle east.)

      Iraq M*A*S*H? Oh we can't have that, thats too violent for Little Jimmy to see on TV but we can broadcast and at pictures of Iraqi prisoners being "interrogated" in prisons on live primetime live news channels. Gulf War vet A-Team shows? Oh no no no, see the U.S. didn't bother to test, cross-test, and then retest the effects, side effects, and then lasting effects on the use of depleted uranium shells before then. So we can't use those types of people in fear of offending those who suffer from radiation poisoning now, but we can still talk and show images of dead Iraqis and destroyed Iraqi equipment created during the 1991 Gulf War. But no Americans.

    3. Re:Don't vote for Bush by Rethcir · · Score: 1

      Plus Alan Alda is kinda getting up there in age. Doo doo doo doo doo doo dooooo, dodododo, dododo doooo...

  12. Some arabic you may be interested in by 0x54524F4C4C · · Score: 4, Funny


    While reconstructing Iraq, use the following words so that people can recognize you're an american:

    talhasteez = lick my ass
    aho charmouta = brother of a bitch
    acrout = the male for bitch

    Sorry, but my arabic knowledge doesn't go beyond these things. Have luck.

  13. Awesome idea.. by euxneks · · Score: 1

    I like the fact that I could play a game and if I was hooked enough on it, learn something useful. Imagine teaching kids this way.. Play enough pokemon, learn Japanese. I think that would be totally worth it.

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    1. Re:Awesome idea.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Play enough pokemon, learn Japanese. I think that would be totally worth it.

      Yes-pika! Because the Japanese-pika in Pokemon-pika is just like they speak on the streets of Tokyo-pikapika!

  14. They aren't tolerant because... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    diversity is a weakness...

    how successful do you think an ant colony would be if the worker ants were free to serve themselves and act individually?? simple answer is it would die very quickly.

    The same could be said for human cultures... if everyone thinks the same, time arguing the best solution to a problem is saved, and can be used to control those that aren't complying to the cultural standard...

    Yes, it's all very totalitarian, and I wouldn't like to live in such a place... but I do believe that ant and bee colonies are the epitome of a *perfect* society.

    Note: perfect != nice

    1. Re:They aren't tolerant because... by Grym · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, it's all very totalitarian, and I wouldn't like to live in such a place... but I do believe that ant and bee colonies are the epitome of a *perfect* society. Note: perfect != nice

      Cooperation is NOT the same as societal perfection. In fact, it's in many cases the opposite. We could efficiently cooperate to cannibalize our children or ethnic minorities, but how ethical or "perfect" would that be? I could risk Godwin's law and make a Nazi analogy but I don't have to--you should get the idea.

      A "perfect" society, given human nature, probably isn't possible, but at the very least, it would have to be structured in a way similar to John Rawls' Theory of Justice. Note the lack of a totalitarian regime or Islamo-fascism.

      Diversity isn't a weakness. In fact, it can be a great strength. Even in your ant colony example, what would happen if a bacterial infection were to hit the colony? Without genetic diversity, the entire colony would probably die. Biodiversity is very important to the viability of any population of organisms--humans included.

      Diversity isn't possible if one side is completely intolerant of the other. As the grandparent expressed, Tolerance is a two-way street. I have no problem being intolerant and militarily aggressive towards of a bunch of barbaric cowards if they leave us no choice.

      -Grym

      *Note: The second link is gruesome, so click at your own discretion.

    2. Re:They aren't tolerant because... by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      > *Note: The second link is gruesome, so click at your own discretion.

      You seem to have forgotten the second link, BTW.

  15. It'd probably do them well... by ColaMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This statement is soley based upon media coverage, and may be entirely inaccurate - post corrections, not flames, below ;-)

    Ok.

    Notice the Poms in Iraq.
    They go around in a (fairly) non-threatening manner. They smile at the kids, they try to get along. Having the experience of wandering around Belfast trying to keep the peace, they've learned to be nice and stay cool with the population, because a lot less bad shit happens that way.

    The yanks, god bless 'em, seem to have a military with the Sole Purpose Of Wiping The Other Guy Out. That's great, except in Iraq, they're past that phase. Things need to cool down, everyone needs to try and refocus. I know, media is biased, but all I see of americans in Iraq are people all gung-ho.
    This is the mindset that needs to change if they're going to get anywhere, because nobody wants some asshole all "yeah! respect mah authoritah,biatch!" in their face, especially one that you think is beginning to overstay their welcome in your country.

    This program then, is a good idea, to promote some sort of cultural sensitivity. Not just arabic as some rather exitable people seem to comment on above, with their rants about why we should have to- any cultural sensitivity would be a good idea at this stage.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
    1. Re:It'd probably do them well... by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      but all I see of americans in Iraq are people all gung-ho.

      Minor correction: "Gung-ho", the Marine core slogan, does not mean "go kill something." Rather, it's a bastardization of a Jappanese slogan that means essentially "work together", and the Marines use it in that light.

      (I am not a marine, just an American with respect for the military.)

  16. Make's sense by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1, Interesting

    DoD wants to be nice to Iraqis now.

    PR took a bit of a hurt when americans almost realized that their country's armed forces might actually be able to do wrong.
    To reaffirm the infallibility of all US actions in the eyes of the public, the Pentagon has instigated these little PR stunts. And to avoid future embarresements, all the dirty work will be done by iraqis from now on.

    Everybody wins, except the guy at the bottom.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Make's sense by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      DoD wants to be nice to Iraqis now.

      DoD has always (well, ever since they started planning the end of the Gulf War) wanted to be nice to the Iraqis. How else do you think we expected them to rise up and help us kick Saddam out?

      It's just a higher priority now, since the ass-kicking is out of the picture.

      Trust me--this isn't a PR stunt. It might be an Iraqi-relations stunt, but not a US PR stunt.

  17. Why wasn't this done years ago? by bluGill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My only question is why this wasn't done years ago? Back when the build up started. All those soldiers were training to fight in the desert. They could have taken an hour from the day and learned the local customs and language. The human body works better when it has rests from time to time anyway.

  18. Klingon by JimTheta · · Score: 2, Funny

    I always thought it would be hilarious if it was revealed that that Klingon was the language of some small African or Asian nation. On the other hand, I'd feel sorry for those who'd have to serve the tourists in the few years after this was revealed.

    Can you imagine having to be nice to Comic Book Guy, because his spending money is what you make in a year? And he can insult you fluently in your native tongue?

  19. Vote, but use facts not propoganda for decision by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    Ever since Bush became the head, the body has been leaning toward middle eastern interests in every direction

    Well if your only source of info is a Michael Moore film I can see where you could get that impression, but in reality U.S. involvement in the Middle East is not a recent event and it is not a Republican idea. If you want to look into actual history lookup:

    President Carter, a Democrat in the late 1970s, created the Rapid Deployment Force for deployment to the Middle East. Over 100,000 combat troops. Joint exercises were routinely conducted in Egypt. In response to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan Carter he also created the "Carter Doctrine" where the U.S. warned that "An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force". We also have the Iranian Hostage Crisis that includes a failed U.S. Delta Force rescue mission. The rise of fundamentalist Islam at this time is what greatly increased U.S. attention and involvement in the region.

    US forces were deployed as peace keepers in Egpyt and Lebanon. I'm not sure if this started with Carter or Reagan. The idea was to provide a buffer between them and the Israelis.

    Somewhere in here we also decided to sell the "friendly" Saudi governemnt lots of arms. Not sure if this was Carter, Reagon, both or even earlier. Selling the "friendly" Iranian government that existed before the fundamentalist revolution definitely happened long before Reagan showed up.

    Ronald Reagon continued Carter's RDF. More involvement in Lebanon that led to the Marine Barracks bombing. Various military actions in the area included the US attack on a Syrian command post in the Bakka valley, a Syrian general and staff officers were reportedly killed.

    George H. Bush's Gulf War is recent enough that you have probably heard of it. Similar with Clinton, a Democratic, airstrikes in Iraq. Sudan, Afghanistant, etc. The continuation of U.S. enforcement of the no-fly zone and the continous exchanges of fire between Iraqi anti-aircraft units and U.S. aircraft year after year after year. Clinton also made it the policy of the U.S. to change the regime in Iraq.

    Until the current political election season began both Democrats and Republicans belived Sadaam was a threat and had to go. The disagreements were over how and when, and whether to let the U.N. have yet another go at it after their repeated failures. Do not confuse election season theatrics with geniune policy positions. Clinton said in 1988 "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." "Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

    Links intentionally left out. You could benefit by some time with google.

    1. Re:Vote, but use facts not propoganda for decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well if your only source of info is a Michael Moore film I can see where you could get that impression, but in reality U.S. involvement in the Middle East is not a recent event and it is not a Republican idea. If you want to look into actual history lookup:"

      Stop right there. You failed to actually factually rebuke the poster point which you quoted. It said "Ever since Bush became the head, the body has been leaning toward middle eastern interests in every direction" The poster took issue with this _current President_ and the _current DARPA funding of a program_ that is the topic of _this slashdot article_.

      Sorry but your rebuke is a crock not because it isn't factual but because of its myopic scope. It was Russia and that thing called the cold war that was the focus durring both the Carter and Regan years and the military was geared toward those threats. The fact that you lump in a 130 odd thosand troops deployed to a small place like Iraq to a comparitively miniscule delta force rescue shows just how far you must stretch to say that the US has been heavily involved in the middle east. Training excercises and rapid response initiatives do not equal troops in real combat like we see in Iraq. Also if as you posit the US has always been heavily militarily involved in the middle east with troops on the ground, why have our troops have had so little comparitive knowledge of the language, culture and customs of that neck of the woods?

      Finally your response lacks links because we should learn something. Try because you could not be bothered and probably already know you are wrong (as stated and explained above) so your facts are non sequitor.

      The posters origional question still stands, unaswered by you, about why we should prepare in this manner unless we intend to keep going back not for excersises but to invade and occupy.

    2. Re:Vote, but use facts not propoganda for decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You failed to actually factually rebuke the poster point which you quoted. It said "Ever since Bush became the head ...

      Actually pointing out that every president since at least the 1970 was militarily involved in the middle east did refute "ever since Bush".

      Finally your response lacks links because we should learn something. Try because you could not be bothered and probably already know you are wrong ...

      Carter's creation of the RDF did not happen?

      Reagan's attack of a Syrian command post did not happen?

      Clinton's bombing of various counties did not happen?

      These were all widely publicized on the news at the time.

      The Carter quote was fabricated?

      The Clinton quote was fabridated?

      Such things are easily verfied. People tend to write down what Presidents say. I guess you are google-challenged as well, or perhaps your politics makes you desparately want to believe Clinton and Carter never said these things.

    3. Re:Vote, but use facts not propoganda for decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are still avoiding answering the posters question. Guess you cannot or are afraid to do so.

      "Actually pointing out that every president since at least the 1970 was militarily involved in the middle east did refute "ever since Bush".

      Obviously you still do not get it.

      You compared relatively minor incidents, training excersises and security/response initiatives with a massive deployment of troops (even more so if you compare troop sizes in the 70's 80's and 90's to the present day levels) to both invade and then occupy a country. Forget that this was a war not of necessity but of choice (you dispute that with your Clinton quote) forget that not one of your quotes deals with present day Pakistan, Afganastan and sacred cow err Saudi Arabia where terrorists struck or were trained and this sitting President did at best a half assed job en route to Bagdad.

      You tried your best but failed to prove that the Middle East was anywhere near the priority via US troops invading and occupying or hell being deployed compared to cold war threats that dominated the decades that you cited save the Clinton quote. To put it in words you will hopefully understand, a training wargame and force designation serves many purposes both strategic and diplomatic but to compare it to the current invasion and occupation is a travesty of both logical thinking and a shameful slight toward those that fight, have fought and have died in this very _real_ combat. You seemed to neither appreciate the scale of the current operation while elevating others to its level solely to defend a President that has created and seems to be leaning toward more operations of this scale. Do you really need to be told that lauching a few (heck even a few dozen) missles is quite different from putting boots of your troops on the ground and the resulting body bags that inevitably follow?

      Consider yourself told. I mean just look at your summaries compared to the current opperation.
      "Carter's creation of the RDF, Reagan's attack of a Syrian command, and Clinton's bombing of various counties."
      100,000 troops stationed in an area (at a time when pentagon had enough to fight on more fronts) compared to today where they hope to pull out all _but_ 100,000 by 2006 and presently have between 135,000 and 145,000 in Iraq prepared to be or actively getting shot at and ambushed daily(1).

      I have a sad fact for you but most Presidents of recent memory bombed countries and Regan's attack of the Syrian command is also a pitance compared to Iraq.

      (1) http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/08/politics/08mili. html?ex=1089864000&en=7ee75ed2d65d25b8&ei=5062&par tner=GOOGLE

    4. Re:Vote, but use facts not propoganda for decision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your argument that recent military involvement is of a much greater intensity is irrelevant, 9/11 changed everything. The Iranian fundamentalist revolution of the late 1970s increased our military involvement in the Middle East. 9/11 greatly escalated it. We moved from a defensive to a more aggressive posture. However the fact remains that for decade after decade, through liberal and conservative administrations, the U.S. has had a substantial military involvement in the region. You can change the topic as much as you like but that fact remains.

  20. Look to North America by tepples · · Score: 1

    Marc Okrand, the linguist behind the Klingon language, was a fan of Native American languages. Some claim that the Klingon language shares much structure with the language of at least one Native American nation. Compare.

  21. Does this mean... by sardaukar_siet · · Score: 1

    ...that the US troops are planning on staying? If not, then why bother? (Yes, I'm european)