Redefining the Foreign Area Officer's Role: a response

Military Review,  Jan-Feb, 2005  by Robert E. Friedenberg

Tags: CAREER, officer, U.S. Army

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

Lieutenant Colonel Robert E. Friedenberg, U.S. Army, Ashburn, Virginia--In the May-June 2004 Military Revieu; Major General Michael A. Vane and Lieutenant Colonel Daniel Fagundes's article, "Redefining the Foreign Area Officer's Role," analyzed the current state of the Army Foreign Area Officer (FAO) program (FA48). The FAO community and the U.S. Army benefit from colleagues taking an interest in how FAOs fit within the framework of the Army and also in the conduct of national security policy. The U.S. Army is in transition, and the FAO functional area will likely undergo changes to reflect emerging requirements.

Vane and Fagundes made several suggestions for improving how FAOs function; however, some of their statements need to be corrected. They say foreign-language ability is an "enabler" for FAOs. For them to identify language ability merely as an enabler mischaracterizes and devalues what is arguably one of the most critical assets FAOs bring to their commanders. Vane and Fagundes also say the FAO assignment system suffers from a "Cold War mentality," even now, more than a decade after the fall of the Soviet Union. I want to stress here the importance of the FAO foreign-language ability and discuss Vane and Fagundes criticisms regarding the FAO assignment process.

What exactly does "enabler" mean? Merriam-Webster's on-line dictionary defines enabler as "one [who] enables another to achieve an end." Never specifically defined in Vane and Fagundes's article, the word in this context seems to mean language ability is a skill that helps FAOs do their job. This definition would be difficult to dispute. However, Vane and Fagundes say foreign-language ability is over-emphasized as a critical FAO skill, and as an "enabler," it should occupy a lower priority than skills such as knowledge of strategic issues.

Why is language ability important to a FAO? While serving overseas tours, FAOs (whether as attaches or security assistance officers) most often meet English-speaking host-country officials. However, in many host countries, members of the military do not speak English or do not speak it well enough to function entirely in English. In such instances, it is critical for the FAO to speak the foreign language competently.

A FAO's ability to get the message across in a foreign language could affect mission success, whether in an operational environment or in support of a training exercise. In many Latin American countries, FAOs function as much in Spanish or Portuguese as they do in English. A FAO's competence in speaking a foreign language opens doors and builds relationships that might pot be possible if the officer spoke only English or saw the study of foreign language merely as an "enabler." Host-country officials appreciate when foreigners, especially Americans, take time to study the host country's language. Improved rapport is the inevitable result.

Vane and Fagundes say within some regions there are too many languages to master for FAOs to communicate effectively in every country. They believe the current FAO construct views the world from a language-centric view rather than a geopolitical perspective. Perhaps there are too many languages for the FAO to fully master in Western Europe and Northern Asia. No one can become a regional expert overnight; it takes years of studying a region and its language to attain expertise. However, having competence in even one language within a region where there are many different languages can have huge payoffs in understanding the region.

Languages such as Chinese, Russian, and Arabic are difficult to master, and students must invest significant time and effort to attain even a moderate level of ability. To become remotely competent, FAOs might spend a year or more at the Defense Language Institute, continue studying on their own and take refresher courses simply to maintain language proficiency.

Although FAOs do not need to be as proficient as translators or interpreters, they do need to focus enough effort on language study to be able to communicate effectively with host-nation military representatives. When FAOs view language capabilities as of secondary importance they relegate the study of foreign language to a lower priority and, inevitably, invest less time and effort to it than to other professional-development objectives.

During the approximate year-long in-country training phase, some FAO trainees attend host-country military schools equivalent to the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or the Captain's Career Course. Attending host-nation military courses allows FAO trainees to train and work closely with host-nation officers in their own environments and to communicate with them in their own languages. Trainees learn about the host country's military culture and how its army fights, which is a critical asset when FAOs are advising policymakers or commanders. These training benefits would not be possible without extensive language training.