There's been a lot written on how American monoglottism hurts our foreign policy, intelligence operations, and military operations. Probably the best I've seen on the subject comes from Andrew Todd's comment on Cliopatria today:
What it comes down to is that you have to start teaching all major third-world languages in the first grade on a compulsory basis, and go on doing so for twenty years, before you get usable results. Naturally, there would be more people wanting their children to take Chinese than other languages, so classes in Amharic, Berber, and Pushtu would be filled by use of the compulsory power. Most of the places where the Marines are likely to be sent in are places where the State Department doesn't want you to go, and doesn't want you to trade with. If there is a distinctive local language, there is likely to be no good reason for learning it, save for military purposes.
(Emphasis mine.)
Posted by Ben Brumfield at January 16, 2006 02:41 PMSection 2 of the essay at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18611 begins with an interesting comment linking the U.S. military's poor language-learning record with its lack of British-style long-term engagement with host countries. Not entirely sure I accept the argument -- the U.S. does in fact have long-term relationships with many countries where it has bases -- but see what you think.
Posted by: Martha Bridegam at January 18, 2006 09:28 AM