Having worked with former US military and three-letter-agency translators, I have to disagree. They undergo large amounts of cultural competence training, and w

Having worked with former US military and three-letter-agency translators, I have to disagree. They undergo large amounts of cultural competence training, and when working, they are expected to translate not just the language, but also the cultural expectations. Even low-level grunts are given basic cultural competence training. "Cultural blindness" is considered a threat to safety, and especially in recent years, there's a lot of effort to reduce it as much as possible. I cannot imagine this sort of flagrant "cultural blindness" coming from the US military. I also cannot imagine what sort of benefit this sort of operation would gain the US, or why a country with the most highly-trained stealth operatives in the world would pick such a loud, public way of assassinating an enemy. This reeks of a false flag to me. Are there particular reasons you think differently?