Error in judgment
Toolbox
Published: November 18, 2008
Few aspects of war are more infuriating than the loss of lives that result largely from flawed reasoning by the brass who do their thinking far from the action.
One old, but good, example: In World War I, Britain's military decision-makers concluded that airmen of the Royal Flying Corps – the precursor to the Royal Air Force – should not have parachutes because they were too heavy, too large and, most importantly, too likely to encourage crews to bail out prematurely.
Consequently, many British airmen were killed over France's bloody battlefields when their flimsy craft were hit by enemy fire and they had no safe way out. None of the decision-makers lost their lives that way, of course. They were snug, smug and safe back in London.
That kind of thinking hasn't entirely vanished. According to a report in Monday's Washington Post, the U.S. Army has forbidden Iraqi interpreters from using masks to hide their identities from radicals who view them as traitors. While American officials cite improved security in Iraq as one reason for the ban, they also invoke the need for "professionalism."
"We are a professional Army and professional units don't conceal their identity by wearing masks," a spokesman for the American military said. He somewhat callously added that those Iraqi interpreters unhappy with the new policy "can seek alternative employment." Not surprisingly, many of them have done just that.
It's one thing for professional soldiers to disdain the wearing of masks, but to ban interpreters from wearing them – because to wear them is, of all things, "unprofessional" – almost certainly puts them at a huge risk of brutal retaliation – death and torture, and not just for them but for their families – from the most radical elements still active in Iraq.
"Many interpreters employed by the U.S. government and Western companies in Iraq do everything they can to avoid being recognized on the job because extremists have tortured and killed Iraqis accused of collaborating with the enemy," The Post's report said.
The newspaper quoted a 36-year-old interpreter who said "the terps (that's their shorthand for their profession) are the number one wanted here … more than the Americans … more than anyone."
About 300 military interpreters have been killed since 2003, Kirk W. Johnson, a former official with the U.S. Agency for International Development, said. Johnson, who has been trying to help interpreters (and other Iraqis) come to the United States, concedes that security has improved, but he doesn't agree with the ban on masks.
"The decline in violence in the past year and a half cannot be disputed," Johnson, who founded the List Project, an advocacy group for Iraqis who have worked for the American government, observed. "But to think somehow that the lethal stigma faced by our Iraqi allies has suddenly worn off is folly."
Even with improved security, a growing number of Iraqis have sought help from Johnson's group in recent months and many of them, he said, are concerned about the mask ban. Interpreters have helped American and coalition soldiers understand Iraq's streets, politics and history, the newspaper reported.
Not surprisingly, ordinary American soldiers don't always agree with the mask ban.
"It's a life-and-death issue for them," Staff Sgt. Jeremy Ziegler, who works in southern Baghdad, told The Post. "I don't see anything wrong with them wearing a mask. Why risk the lives of those who work with us?"
Because risking their lives is somehow more professional than taking sensible precautions? No, because the decision-makers have erred, again.
25