Language training in the French Army is often organized either by civilians working in a military organization or by civilian institutes that take care of military personnel seeking to obtain a military language certificate through a civilian diploma. However, "speaking a foreign language" today has become an indispensable tool for increasing one's skills and, perhaps more importantly, one's performance. This is not only true for diplomats, politicians or business leaders; no, it is also true for the military.

So why not give language training the place it deserves in the training of the military?

Throughout my stays in France since 1996, particularly in military institutions, I have been able to observe a certain "gaping space", tactically speaking, in the field of language training for the military, even though there are organisations within the French armed forces whose mission is to introduce military personnel to languages other than Voltaire's.

Indeed, if one reads the circular on military language training[1] carefully, one may be surprised at the multiplicity of services responsible: CFIAR[2], the DLEA[3 ] at the Écoles de Saint-Cyr-Coёtquidan, the various language sections at the École de guerre (EdG), the École d'état-major (EEM) or the École nationale des sous-officiers d'actif (ENSOA), the commissions that deal with the numerous language examinations, and we must not forget all the "language officers" in the various units. To all this, one must also add the CNFLIG[4] which depends on the Gendarmerie, but which also prepares foreign officers for military training courses in France.

So a large structural organization for finally little language training because, apart from language courses at Coёtquidan, Saint Maixent and Compiègne, the military often have to apply the famous "system D" to acquire a good level in a foreign language, i.e. follow courses in a civilian language institute, which is not always very motivating.

One almost gets the impression that knowledge of a foreign language does not occupy a very important place in the French army. So, before looking further into the question of setting up a military language school, we need to look at the real need for a soldier to speak a foreign language.

Is knowing how to speak a foreign language a luxury for soldiers?

When one follows the various speeches of the great military leaders, for example at the beginning of a training course such as the Staff Diploma or the Superior Course, one must be able to speak a foreign language.When you follow the various speeches of the great military chiefs, for example at the beginning of a training course such as the staff diploma or the Cours supérieur d'état-major, you always hear that it is essential for a French officer today to speak a foreign language, especially English. The reasons are obvious:

• since 2009 France has occupied an important place in NATO's integrated military structures after 40 years of absence,
• France participates in multinational operations, not only with national contingents, but also in multinational headquarters,
• France plays an important role in "military diplomacy" through its network of defence attachés,
• France, as a member of the European Union, participates in the councils and meetings of working groups concerning the Common Foreign and Security Policy and the European Security and Defence Policy.

Without forgetting the various cooperation programmes between the French, British and American Ministries of Defence, it is very clear that one cannot fail to speak English. But this concerns only a small part of the rich range of France's external operations.

What are the language requirements in missions such as Afghanistan, for example? And what kind of public is involved? Only officers or also non-commissioned officers and non-commissioned members?

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, a distinction is made between two types of language register: the language of command and the regional language in the area of operation. The language or languages of command are French and English, but it should be noted, however, that in order to save Task Force La Fayette time, even the AITGs are asked to write orders to the higher level in English[5]. So it is quite conceivable that, in an international environment, the French could even communicate with each other in English.

As for the regional language in the area of operation, it is less obvious to detect the need for the military to speak it, since simple orders such as "Halt!", "Hands up!", "Get out!" etc. are quickly acquired in Pashtun or Dari. However, there are significant advantages if soldiers in contact with the Afghan population speak their language.

In order not to go beyond the scope of this article, it suffices here to present the two most important advantages in the field of intelligence and security.

At the intelligence level, there are several possibilities for acquiring information, such as searching for information by technical means. Another possibility is intelligence by the public, which could provide information about what they have seen or what has happened. Unfortunately, there are not enough teams of interpreters to accompany all the actions of the EU IATFs.

Of course, it is not a question of speaking the regional language without an accent, but a group leader should be able to gather information through the "3QCO" principle (who, what, when, how, where).Therefore, the aim of linguistic preparation for an external operation (OPEX) is not to acquire all the skills in a foreign language, but to teach specific aspects [6]. 6] This form of partial instruction is less time-consuming and could easily be integrated into the operational preparation of an ATIG planned to go on an OPEX.

In terms of security, the mission of the French armed forces in Afghanistan is, among other things, to "secure the areas under French responsibility in order to enable development and reconstruction operations and the deployment of State services" [7]. To carry out this mission properly, it is essential to win the confidence of the population, and this is done quite naturally through the mother tongue of the inhabitants of the area of responsibility. In order to better understand, one just has to put oneself in the place of a father or mother, surrounded by armed soldiers who speak a language that one does not know and who have another culture, and therefore react differently. Now try to have confidence!

And then there is another positive point in terms of security, but this time it concerns soldiers who make the effort to learn a foreign language. Indeed, learning a foreign language also allows a contact with the culture and traditions of the people speaking the learned language! In short, language training for military personnel means a gain in understanding for "the other" and less risk of falling into the trap of the "strategic corporal" [8] who, by an ill-considered action, jeopardizes the success of the entire mission. Frenchman Henri Boré, a former army colonel, also agrees with the need for better cultural understanding when he writes in his article on the experiences of the French army in Africa: "French soldiers have repeatedly had to face unconventional warfare and the difficulties of operating in Africa's many different cultures. It takes time to learn about and understand a foreign culture and to then determine how to apply the knowledge gained to all types of military operations. The sooner young French leaders learn about Africa, the more confident and, ultimately, the more successful they are when deployed."[9].

In conclusion, the non-exhaustive list of arguments cited shows very clearly that foreign language proficiency is no longer a mere added value for a member of the armed forces, but a key skill, and this applies not only to officers, but also to non-commissioned officers. The US armed forces are moving in the same direction and even propose to integrate the teaching of "tactical level" languages, such as Dari, Arabic, Farsi, Turkish or Pashto, into the training of NCOs[10].

The creation of a central language training body - an indispensable instrument for effective military language training

The last part of this article aims to present some thoughts on the advantages and disadvantages that the establishment of a military language school (joint or not) within the French armed forces could have, based on the example of the Austrian armed forces.

Austria and its armed forces have always been confronted with language problems. At the time of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, each regiment had its own language, for example Czech, Hungarian or Croatian, although the language of command was always German. Very often, young officers who had graduated from one of the military academies and transferred to regiments at the other end of the Empire were forced to learn the language of the regiment. If they did not pass the examination, they could no longer compete for promotion and were therefore forced to leave the army. As a result, the Austro-Hungarian officers spoke at least three languages, as they had already been trained in two foreign languages at the military academy. This tradition has continued to this day, even though Austrian regiments today are monolingual, and the officer corps is still very good at speaking foreign languages.

English, the first foreign language taught in the army, is spoken by 99% of the officers. French, in second place, is spoken by 31% of the officers, and behind French are Russian, Italian, Spanish, Croatian and other languages of neighbouring countries. This means that about 40% of Austrian officers today speak at least two foreign languages. And this rate is set to rise, because since 2010, officer cadets are required to learn two languages in order to succeed at the Military Academy. For non-commissioned officers, the situation is different because the rate is lower. But for some years now, NCOs have been required to take an exam in English to complete their training at the NCO Academy.

And then, throughout their military career, both officers and NCOs continue their training. They do at least one language course, or begin learning a new foreign language necessary for a new function or to prepare for a mission abroad. In addition, every three years they must pass an examination in accordance with NATO STANAG 6001 to obtain a valid military language certificate recognised by international military institutions.

The body responsible for language training is called the Austrian Armed Forces Language Institute and is part of the National Defence Academy, which is comparable to the Military Academy.

What are the advantages of such an institution?

• The creation of a unique concept of language training. In order to standardise military language training, a single concept is needed which defines the different forms of teaching, the forms of courses, the examination procedures and the contents of the various courses. This single concept, which is nothing more than a doctrine for language training, does not yet exist in France;
• The organization of targeted language training for military personnel planned for missions abroad. In France, as in Austria, the time for the preparation of military personnel is short and very precious. To teach what the trainees really need, there must be a centralized organization that employs specialists, i.e. experienced military personnel who also have recognized training as language teachers;
• The organization of military language courses. To improve and increase the level of language, a weekly course (e.g. two hours per week) has proven less effective than concentrated training (e.g. six weeks at 30 hours). This concerns not only the results obtained in language examinations, but also the motivation of the trainees, since it is much more difficult to continue a two-hour course per week lasting several months than a 30-hour course per week which is completed after six weeks. Civilian institutes are often not in a position to offer this type of course. In addition, with regard to the military content, experienced military personnel, as in point 2 above, who have completed military internships in the respective countries should be employed to teach military culture;
• The publication of military dictionaries and linguistic mementos. The swift decision of the Austrian Minister of Defence in 2008 to participate with a contingent in the EUFOR/CHAD mission made it necessary to publish a language tool that our soldiers could use in Chad to make themselves understood. As soon as possible, the language institute produced a tri-lingual glossary (Arabic-French-German) with a "Cultural Awareness" partand a "pictures"part with which Austrians could communicate (in case of emergency) without being able to pronounce a word. Arabic was written in phonetic transcription so that soldiers who could not read the Arabic script could at least pronounce it;
• Quality assurance. The fact that the various language courses take place in a military institution facilitates quality management, which is aimed at providing the trainees with an effective and high-quality product (training). This is not possible if military personnel attend different civilian language institutes and have civilian language certificates approved to obtain a military language certificate in accordance with NATO STANAG 6001. This process is all the more open to criticism because, on the one hand, it gives rise to feelings of unfairness, since civilian examinations are often much less demanding than military ones, and, on the other hand, research has clearly shown that that a comparison between the definition of military (STANAG 6001) and civilian (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages) language levels cannot be scientifically based[11].

Compared to the situation of language training in the French army (dispersed means - little motivation to learn a language - no centralized concept and structure) there are only fewThere are few disadvantages to setting up a military language school, apart from the long training of a specialised staff and the provision of infrastructure and financial resources.

Although the training of a specialist is a lengthy process, since in addition to a military career he or she must begin and complete training as a language teacher, there are other branches of education in theThere are, however, other branches in the French army, such as psychological support (CISPAT[12]), where the training of specialised officers is carried out in the same way (university studies instead of the EdG).

The provision of infrastructure and financial means should not be a major problem either, as there are already "military" institutions such as the CNFLIG, mentioned above. mentioned at the beginning of this article, which also has the capacity to accommodate a sufficient number of trainees, or CFIAR, even if it seems unlikely that CFIAR will be taken out of the intelligence domain.

As far as financial resources are concerned, there is certainly a need to invest a significant amount in order to transform the existing structures. In the end, however, the advantages predominate and, in the medium term, it is much more profitable to group the military in a military language school and conduct targeted and effective language courses than to leave the military alone and outsource language courses.

Throughout a French soldier's career, he or she is asked to learn a foreign language without being given the appropriate means. Now it is high time to act and to structure language training as it should be for a large army such as France's.

1] Circular No. 274409/DEF/RH-AT/FS/LANGUES on the training, assessment and allocation of foreign language proficiency levels for active army personnel for the 2011-2012 training cycle.

2] Joint Intelligence Training Centre (Strasbourg).

3 ] Applied Foreign Languages Division.

4 ] Centre national de formation aux langues et à l'international (Rochefort-sur-mer).

5 ] Testimony of Colonel Heluin, CDC of the "Richelieu" Battle Group in Afghanistan 2010-2011 during his intervention at the MSRC on October 6, 2011.

[6] In the teaching of French as a foreign language, this type of teaching has been named "FOS" - French on Specific Purpose. But the methods of FOS can also be used in the teaching of foreign languages in general. For more information: http://www.ciep.fr/carnetadFLE/docs/repertoire-methodes-fos.pdf, 11 October 2011, 20:20.

[7] http://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/afghanistan/dossier/le-dispositif-francais-pour-l-afghanistan. 11 October 2011, 20h26.

8] General Charles C. Krulak, "TheStrategic Corporal: Leadership in the Three Block War" Marines Magazine (January 1999).

9] Colonel Henri Boré, "Cultural Awarenessand Irregular Warfare: French Army, Experience in Africa" Military Review (Fort Leavenworth, July-August 2006), pp. 108-111.

10]Kevin D. Stringer, "Educatingthe Strategic Corporal: A Paradigm Shift " http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/call/docs/11-20/ch_8.asp 11 October 2011, 21:40.

11] Andreas Prutsch, "Die Anwendung des Gemeinsamen europäischen Referenzrahmens für Sprachen im Bereich der Sprachausbildung des Österreichischen Bundesheeres». (Wien 2011), pp. 40-60.

[12] Army Psychological Support Intervention Cell.

Major Andreas PRUTSCH is an officer in the Austrian army where he served in an infantry regiment after his schooling, before specializing in intelligence. He was transferred to the National Defence Academy in Vienna in 1996 and is currently head of the "French" department at the Austrian Army Language Institute. He teaches at the Military Academy in Wiener Neustadt as well as at the Austrian CID and completed his studies of history and French at the University of Vienna.