The U.S. Army Foreign Language Badge
Could a visual representation of foreign language proficiency improve test scores?
Special Operations Forces (SOF) play an integral part of activities carried out below the level of armed conflict. These activities often demand that SOF personnel be able to communicate in foreign languages when working with allies and partners.” — US General Accountability Office (GAO), 2023
I. Background.
In 2010, I proposed to establish the U.S. Army Foreign Language Badge as a visible reference for language proficiency. I was saddened by the less-than-average test results. I wanted to improve the foreign language proficiency of Special Forces, Psychological Operations, and Civil Affairs, also known as the Special Operations Forces (SOF) Triad.
I wrote the inserts to AR 670–1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniforms and Insignia and to AR 600–8–22, Military Awards. On my own, I shared personal techniques during seminars and during one-on-one sessions at the Special Warfare Center. I made it easy to understand and implement.
A. General (not the rank) Disinterest (most ranks).
Only a few interested parties paid attention. I didn’t even receive a reply from the U.S. Army Suggestion Program. In fairness, 2010 and 2011 were challenging years for the Army due to commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other crisis areas. That same period was also a time of crisis for me due to multiple surgeries and a Medical Evaluation Board.
In addition to being ignored, I was teased. Some colleagues and a few personnel who often scored a 0 Reading / 0 Listening rating (No proficiency) in the Defense Language Proficiency Test (more on this later), suggested a badge like the Rolling Stones mouth.
I must admit that it’s a provocative symbol, maybe even lovable/kissable, but not fitting for the uniform, and dishonors the sacrifices of those who earned a spot in SOF.
B. Too transactional?
Maybe the inserts were too boring. I admit, all regulations are a tough read….zzzzzzzzz. Plus, the fact that I did not include a design with my proposal may have played a part in the failure.
C. Too idealistic?
I also admit that I may seem to be idealistic. All dreamers who envision a better reality are met, at least initially, with the same label.
Soldiers have unlimited potential. Accepting less-than-average performance dishonors the SOF mantra of being the best.
What’s not dream-like is my proven performance. I am a high school drop out who maintained a 3/3 rating in Arabic DLPT IV, 3/2+ rating in Arabic DLPT V, and 3/3 DLPT IV in Tagalog.
How did I do it?
I created my own training system. In addition to working hard, I discarded methodologies that did not work, and incorporated concepts from other disciplines that made my own learning fun. That’s on top of all the Special Forces deployments.
D. Fear of failure?
On the other hand, I am also realistic.
It is common knowledge that to make a new idea come to life, especially in a domain that insists on following established regulations that, at the same time, may frown upon creativity, is daunting.
At a professional level, the fear of failure could have paralyzed decision makers from risking their careers on a silly new idea.
Why rock an already-sinking foreign language sustainment training boat?
E. Too much work?
Then, there is the additional trouble of reallocating pre-approved spending, or requesting additional funds to fully, or even partially, invest in new projects (time, money, and resources).
Even the most nimble units with workable, world-changing ideas, can face internal and external hurdles. During discussions and final negotiations, consensus and compromise may not come easily, or may even be delayed and suspended within a self-suctioning bureaucratic vacuum.
II. Does SOF Really Need Foreign Language Skills?
Haven’t we been fairly successful in most parts of the world despite low test scores?
If we are already the top dog, why should we strive to increase foreign language proficiency?
A. Language proficiency helps build rapport.
Scenario 1.Picture this. Location: U.S. soil.
A family in a restaurant overhears a conversation in Spanish, Arabic, or one of the Asiatic languages — and they stop their meal — to demand that the other patrons speak only English.
This is a scene that most of us have seen in person, or on social media. From my own experience, I have felt uncomfortable when people speak in a language that I do not understand.
Many thoughts come up, ranging from — curiosity, to fear, to feeling disrespected.
Are they talking/laughing about me? Why can’t they assimilate?
An immediate social barrier is created.
Scenario 2. Picture this. Location: Allied country.
You are assigned to an isolated region to advise counterparts and to win the hearts and minds of the populace. But, you refuse to learn a few words of their language. You speak only in English.
If you and I get offended at home, how do you think your counterparts will feel?
Some cultures will never tell you that they are offended by your lack of courtesy. Instead, they may become passive aggressive and won’t fully commit to shared goals.
We solidify rapport by speaking the language of our counterparts.
Using just a few words in their language speaks volumes about your openness and commitment to their community. If a few words can make a difference, how much more influence will you wield when you master your target language?
B. We are Warrior-Diplomats.
In comparison to conventional forces, SOF elements deploy in small teams. What we lack in sheer firepower is balanced by the soft power of interpersonal skills, a component of which, is the ability to communicate effectively in a foreign language.
C. We communicate more than we shoot.
Think talk-to-trigger ratio. More on this later.
If this upsets you, and you absolutely cannot wait, skip ahead to Section VIII.
III. Millions of Dollars in Spending, Cents in ROI.
The US Army, the US Special Operations Command, and SOF service component commands, from 2018–2022, collectively spent between $42.6M and $49.4M on language training (South, 2023 and GAO, 2023). That is an annual average spending of approximately $30.6M.
A. What the Report Says.
According to official reports (GAO, 2023), the Army and Marine Corps Special Operations Commands have:
- Not held unit commanders accountable for monitoring whether SOF personnel complete annual foreign language training.
- Not penalized service members who do not meet minimum proficiency.
The GAO (2023) recommends specific “consequences when foreign language proficiency standards are not met”, and to, “hold unit commanders accountable for monitoring and reporting on completion of required training.”
In my opinion, when it comes to language training, programs should be penalized, not the soldiers, and not the unit commanders.
1. Soldiers and Unit Commanders did not design the language sustainment training program.
2. Soldiers and Unit Commanders have “zero control” regarding the quality of the on-site instruction.
3. The failure is across all SOF units which is indicative of a “systemic, program-wide problem.”
4. Soldiers and Commanders are merely the “captured audience” of a “failed” and “still failing” program — that “will continue to fail” unless someone leads a transformation.
5. The sustainment program is the problem. The problem is the sustainment program
The Navy Seals are extremely capable. But they chose to “pause” their language sustainment program.
Why?
Is it the Seals, or is it the language program?
B. Questions for the GAO.
1. How can you hold individual soldiers responsible when the metrics indicate a program-wide problem?
The SOF members that you evaluated are graduates of the SOF language program. They have proven that they possess the capability to learn a foreign language.
Where does the real problem lie —with the soldier, or with the language sustainment training program?
The answer is easy.
You increased the language pay, but the language scores stayed flat.
Hmmm….
2. How can you hold unit commanders accountable for monitoring a failed program?
Unit commanders were trained under the same failed program. To add, unit commanders are not empowered to make changes to improve, or to tailor programs to meet regional requirements.
Commanders are selected above their peers for the demonstrated capability to lead. But, according to empirical data, the best unit commanders fail — when presented with a substandard program.
How are they to know what success looks like?
Commanders care about their soldiers, but they relatively do not have the same level of “life-or-death skin in the game” such as that faced by minimally-armed SOF teams that are “outside the wire” in areas dominated by the adversary.
Depending on the level of command, Unit Commanders are echelons removed from the battlefield, are surrounded by a support staff in well-fortified and well-protected locations “inside the wire”, and may have the luxury of interpreters.
3. The final question for the GAO:
Which of the two areas are shaped, or influenced by SOF foreign language mastery — “inside the wire”, or “outside the wire?”
C. Training Programs Remain Blameless.
Rather than pushing the envelope and demanding excellent results in exchange for its investment (time, money, and resources), it seems that programs are perfectly comfortable with the depressing and less-than-average-results.
If the US Government’s evaluation is accurate (why wouldn’t it be?), the language sustainment training programs of today are advanced only in age, but similar to 2010, are conspicuous failures.
If the SOCOM foreign language sustainment program were a business that demanded annual financial reporting, it would be as bankrupt as Amtrak or the US Postal Service.
IV. Language Pay and Ratings are Esoteric/Abstract.
In 2006, the Office of the Sectary of Defense increased the highest maximum pay for a single language from $200 to $500 per month, and the maximum rate for multiple-language proficiency increased from $300 to $1,000 per month (U.S. Air Force, 2006).
For me, the change increased non-taxable income by $800 ($400 per month for Arabic and $400 per month for Tagalog), a generous amount for a soldier with a wife and young children.
A. The Money.
Language pay is esoteric to those who are not getting paid.
To those who earn the extra pay, the money is “tangible”, immediately usable for purchases or savings. However, to the soldier who is not paid, cash that is not in their pocket is “intangible/abstract”, without value, and therefore, not worth the effort.
Uncomfortable Questions:
1. Why are test results dismal despite the increase in language pay?
2. Is it the pay, or is it something else?
B. The Rating.
Language proficiency is an abstract concept to those with low test scores.
A soldier with a 3/3 rating provides immense value to the unit mission and contributes measurable and tangible results during all phases of strategic competition, and on the battlefield.
However, only the proficient soldier can possibly know its true value. His teammates can watch, or listen, but they cannot appreciate that skill.
We cannot appreciate, nor fully understand, what we do not possess.
As an example, I don’t practice Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, but I watch in awe at how fighters maneuver and win. From afar, their moves look easy. I feel that I can do the same. But in reality, it takes thousands of hours of practice to reach that level of mastery, a commitment that I will never fully understand.
The fluidity of the master is gibberish to the non-practitioner.
C. The Apathy Is Real, Not Abstract.
During my career, due to a multitude of reasons, many of my colleagues lost interest in language training. They guessed their way through the annual tests. They did not prepare. Some finished their annual six-hour test (3-hours for reading and 3-hours for listening) within minutes.
Like clockwork, every year, they scored 0/0 (No proficiency), or 1/1 (Basic survival proficiency). The few who were serious achieved a 2/2 rating (Basic comprehension of simple written material and conversation).
To a soldier who has become apathetic, a 3/3 rating is incomprehensible. Only a 3/3 speaker can possibly know the immense battlefield value of that near-native rating, just as a 14-minute, two-mile-runner will never know the exhilaration felt by a soldier who runs the same two miles in 10 minutes.
What should we do to end this normalized apathy towards language training?
Will a visual representation of foreign language proficiency motivate soldiers to learn? I don’t know. I suggested it in 2010, but the timing was not right.
V. Badges are Tangible.
“Give me enough medals and I’ll win you any war.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
Soldiers love badges, medals, and distinctive headgear. With pride, we touch, arrange, clean, and shine them. As professionals, we honor badges with as much care as the uniform itself.
Accoutrements speak volumes without saying a single word.
More importantly, badges and medals symbolize values such as courage, diligence, competence, and excellence — admirable traits that would otherwise require many paragraphs, or many beers, to explain.
Be honest.
How many times have you been drawn to a military school for the badge?
If they didn’t hand out Parachutist, Combat Diver, HALO, Air Assault, or Pathfinder Badges, would you still go?
We hand out Weapons Qualification Badges and Drivers Badges (for goodness’ sake…for driving Army vehicles with automatic transmissions), but we can’t dole out a Language Badge?
Isn’t SOF battlefield lethality enhanced by language mastery?
VI. How Should the Language Badge Look Like?
I don’t know. I wasn’t artistically gifted in 2010. Today, I can draw stick figures, a significant personal improvement.
A. Potential Symbology
There are several options. It could contain a globe to symbolize global awareness (see the USMC’s Globe and Anchor).
Or, it may contain an image that depicts an open mind. After all, it takes an open mind (see the open parachute in the Parachutist Badge) to learn anything, and openness to remain non-judgmental of the cultural norms of our counterparts.
B. Award System
Using the Parachutist Badge as a model, this is how it could work out:
1. Basic Linguist Badge, 1/1
2. Senior Linguist Badge (with Star), 2/2
3. Master Linguist Badge (with Star and Wreath), 3/3
C. A Change in Test Scores Changes the Award
To incentivize continuous language training, the language badge must depict only the current year’s proficiency.
When a soldier earns a 3/3, they may wear the Master Linguist Badge. If, at any time they earn a lower test score, they wear the Senior Linguist Badge (2/2), or the Basic Linguist Badge (1/1), until they their raise test scores.
Why?
Language proficiency is perishable.
In contrast to parachuting, where the Senior and Master Wings become permanent qualifications (whether the soldier chooses to stay on airborne status, or not), foreign language skills degrade quickly, and therefore, cannot be considered a permanent skill.
Without practice, language proficiency gets stale, loses its brilliance (stammering, bumbling), and reduces organizational credibility. Language must be taken out of its “holster”, and used often, to “get the kinks out.”
To this day, I am adamant that the Rolling Stone Mouth should not be used as the symbol. It’s memorable, but it does not reflect the professionalism of Warrior-Diplomats whose proficiency facilitates the capture of adversaries.
The Rolling Stone Mouth is lovable, maybe even kissable, but it dishonors the sacrifices of Warrior-Diplomats whose language capabilities have saved the lives of many.
VII. What About the Extra Work?
Yes, the Human Resources Department could complain about the extra work.
Which is more important? Pick one:
1. Front-facing, often scar-producing, global language proficiency that wins battles?
2. Back-room bickering about “backbreaking” computer keystrokes and paper cuts?
When annual language test scores change, the Finance Section makes the change to reflect the proper language pay, don’t they?
Can we do the same for the Language Badge?
VIII. For the Habitual Naysayers.
Warning: If you are easily upset with reality. Skip this part.
“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” — A. Einstein
Ready?
A. Talk-to-Trigger Ratio.
During SOF deployments, soldiers spend more time communicating than shooting. Training scenarios, or operational missions with allies, may only last a few hours per day. The rest of the time, soldiers are advising, training, and communicating U.S. intentions and goals. Even the most difficult combat scenarios are short in comparison to the “administrative and operational lull” in combat zones.
In a more understandable parlance, I ask this question: Can you name a SOF unit that has been “running and gunning 24/7?”
During deployments, soldiers spend more time communicating than shooting.
This is the ground truth. Improvement, success, and victory are founded on the awareness and acceptance of truth. That’s not a lie.
By now, the person in SOCOM who claims to “not need a foreign language because they speak 5.56mm x 45mm NATO, 9mm, and 7.62 x 51mm NATO rounds” is seething, or at the very least, tired of reading….zzzzz.
Here are some difficult questions for you:
1. If that is your creed, why did you join SOF in the first place?
2. Didn’t you read the recruiting poster that mentioned the dual proficiency of a Warrior-Diplomat?
3. If your solution is to shoot everything in sight, why did you join SOF?
4. If language mastery was never part of your Warrior-Diplomat identity, why didn’t you quit during Language School?
5. Now that you have earned the 18-Series, 37-Series, or 38-Series MOS codes, you feel justified in neglecting a critical component of the Warrior-Diplomat craft?
Instead of denying ground truth, go read a language book of some significance. You might learn to translate something other than “pew, pew………pew, pew.”
Okay. I was a little rough, a little much. Didn’t I warn you?
It should have been “pew, pew…” to save two rounds of ammunition.
The painful truth is that soldiers are “at rest”, “at the ready”, or “on standby”, and “communicate with allies” more often than they “pull the trigger” to engage the enemy.
This is not to say that we should not be tactically proficient at all times.
I am a graduate of SFARTAETC (CQB and Hostage Rescue) and SOTIC (Special Forces Sniper, Level 2), and served in the Commander’s In-Extremis Force (CIF) in Asia and in the Middle East. I know the value of weapons-based tactical and technical competence. But, the talk-to-trigger ratio cannot, and should not, be ignored.
You are an elite soldier in a highly selective unit.
You demonstrated the capacity to learn and you successfully graduated language school.
But now, you feel uninspired. Why?
There is a reason, or possibly multiple reasons (personal, professional, and/or organizational factors), that manifest as the lack of interest in foreign language sustainment training.
How has the language sustainment training program failed you?
B. Excuses.
Every year, the same excuses are recycled. The most common one is “The program didn’t prepare me to speak the dialect of the region.”
Realities:
- SOF cannot possibly train its limited number of personnel for every dialect. It’s impossible. The Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOC) use five-year estimates, but our adversaries have a say about when and where the next conflict will occur. Don’t they?
“Implementation is not the problem, adaptation is.” — Benjamin Gilad, Ph.D.
In Army-speak, Dr. Gilad is saying, “adapt and overcome.” Find ways to maintain a positive perspective. Learning a dialect, or a new language is a good thing. Right?
2. Unless you’re on a mission to build a guerrilla force to destabilize the incumbent government, mastering the national language is your best, and should be your first, option.
3. Once the national language is mastered, it will be much easier to learn a regional dialect, most of which are derived from, or are similar to the national language.
4. A country’s national language is the basis for economic, political, social, and religious policies.
5. Speaking, reading, and writing the national language at a high level, gives you the psychological and operational upper hand.
6. Your personalized training techniques (writing, listening, reading) are transferable. You can use the same techniques to learn a regional dialect, or a totally different language, in a region other than your own.
For that matter, if you apply the same level of effort into language training, with the same level of energy that you exert to perfect your tactical craft, you will absolutely improve your test scores.
IX. The Badge is Not Enough. Training Must Change.
The badge is just one component for motivating soldiers.
To make the transformation complete, training methodologies must change.
Why must we overhaul the current language sustainment training program?
The status quo methodologies have failed to generate positive results…..year after year, after year, after year, I could keep going….
The October 2023 GAO report says so.
But, did we really need the GAO to tell us that?
Waiting for the annual SOCOM language test results to improve — is like paying top dollar to watch the same old, boring movie — then acting surprised that it’s the same sad ending.
How did that ending happen….again…and again….and again?
When will this change? How painful must this become? Have the Army’s most elite soldiers resigned themselves to accept less-than-average results….for another 14 years?
Those classrooms drain the motivation out of Warrior-Diplomats. Obviously.
The program drains another component…Return on Investment.
For the habitual naysayers…I’m sorry, ROI is not a new type of ammunition, not a new way to improve trigger control, and not another way to acquire a good sight picture.
How can we inspire Type A personalities to love learning on their own?
What must change so that Warrior-Diplomats learn continuously without being prodded?
X. Conclusion.
If you are a member of a Special Operations unit, you must demand more from your language program. Don’t take “no”, “no money”, or “no time” for an answer. Be persistent.
In time, you will:
1. Learn the unedited personal sentiments of the locals, your adversaries, and your allied partners.
2. Become more efficient and effective which will shorten your exposure to enemy combatants during missions.
3. Contribute more to your unit through enhanced rapport-building capabilities — without a third wheel (the interpreter).
De Oppresso Liber.
Win the Mind, Win the Day.
Secure the Victory.
Copyright Leonard Casiple 2024. All rights reserved.
References
Army Quartermaster Foundation. (n.d.). U.S. Army parachute badge. Army Quartermaster Foundation, Inc. — Preserving the history and traditions of the United States Army Quartermaster Corps. https://www.quartermasterfoundation.org/u-s-army-parachute-badge/#:~:text=A%20star%20above%20the%20canopy,individual%20proficiency%20and%20parachute%20qualifications
GAO: Special operators need more language training. (2023, December 4). AUSA. https://www.ausa.org/news/gao-special-operators-need-more-language-training#:~:text=Language%20skills%20are%20vital%20for,and%20train%20with%20foreign%20militaries
South, T. (2023, November 7). Army, marine special operators fail to keep up with language training. Army Times. https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2023/11/07/army-and-marine-special-operators-fail-to-keep-up-on-language-training/#:~:text=SOCOM%20and%20the%20SOF%20service,period%2C%20according%20to%20the%20report
U.S. Air Force. (2006, June). Rates change for foreign language proficiency pay. Air Force. https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/130837/rates-change-for-foreign-language-proficiency-pay/
United States Goverment Accountability Office. (2023, October). Special Operations Forces enhanced training, analysis, and monitoring could improve foreign language proficiency. U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). https://www.gao.gov/assets/d24105849.pdf
United States Marine Corps. (n.d.). Emblem. Marine Corps Installations Pacific (MCIPAC). https://www.mcipac.marines.mil/Staff-and-Sections/Special-Staff/Civilian-Human-Resources-Office/About-the-Marine-Corps/Emblem/
Walbanke, D. (2023, October 20). Paint it red and Black: The man behind the Rolling Stones’ iconic lips logo. Rolling Stone UK. https://www.rollingstone.co.uk/music/features/paint-it-red-and-black-the-man-behind-the-rolling-stones-iconic-lips-logo-33662/
Copyright Leonard Casiple 2024. All rights reserved.
About the author:
Leonard Casiple spent much of his 21-year career in the US Army as a PSYOP Specialist and as a Green Beret.
Leo grew up under martial law in Mindanao, Southern Philippines where he was raised speaking Cebuano. He later learned Tagalog, the national language, along with English, in elementary school. Leonard is a graduate of DLIFLC’s Modern Standard Arabic language program. During his service, he maintained a 3/3 rating in Arabic DLPT IV, a 3/2+ rating in Arabic DLPT V, and a 3/3 rating in Tagalog DLPT IV. After his military service, Leo learned to read Classical Hebrew.
Leonard is currently enrolled in Northeastern University’s Doctor of Law and Policy program. He earned his education from California Lutheran University (Master of Public Policy and Administration), ASU Thunderbird School of Global Management (Master of Business Administration in Global Management), Excelsior University (BS in Liberal Arts, Ethnic and Area Studies), Academy of Competitive Intelligence (Master of Competitive Intelligence™ and Competitive Intelligence Professional CIP-I Certificates), Defense Language Institute and Foreign Language Center (Arabic Linguist Certificate), and the US Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (Special Forces Engineer Sergeant Course and Psychological Operations Specialist Course).
For more information about the author, see Leo’s LinkedIn Profile
