PDA

View Full Version : Recruiting for SWC members because....



Rob Thornton
09-06-2007, 05:11 PM
I promise this is not a NPR or PBS funding drive:D

However, we can tell by the number of new members and the number of visits to the site that clearly there are more people who come to read and consider what is being written, then those willing to participate. This is perfectly OK.

However, I would like those both inside and outside the council to consider some rationale for greater participation.

- I first came to the council back in the Summer of 06 at the advice of Tom Odom. While I was comfortable on CoPs (Communities of Practice), they had largely been confined to those limited to military participation. Immediately, I was exposed to guys like "Slapout, Steve Blair, Marc T" who provided me perspective in the areas of Law Enforcement and Cultural Anthropology which helped me tremendously to do my job working with indigenous forces in a COIN environment. I also met guys like John Bellflower who helped shape Joint Service perspective and development for future jobs. I also met some outstanding retired and contract workers who provide institutional and conventional wisdom as well, superb critical reason and logic, and often - unorthodox problem solving that conserve resources. I've also had the opportunity to consider and express my personal views in the light of others who differ - and I like to believe we have both benefited from these discussions.

- Much of the knowledge that is shared often happens behind the scenes through PMing and emailing - once a person is identified as having a skill set, that person is often solicited on a 1:1 basis for specific thoughts or requests - we build knowledge in this way and form networks for problem sets.

- Often a new member might be hesitant to express and opinion, so it stands to reason that a non-member might be hesitant to sign up to be a member. We often see posts where a new member qualifies their participation as being without experience or "in light of a prestigious group" :wry: - I have not figured that one out yet:D - but we'd prefer you not to feel that way - the concern or interest that brought you to the site, and willingness and energy to devote your time combined with your personal and professional experiences are very important to a nation at war in a world that has a suite of connected issues that effect us all in our every day lives. We only ask that when providing your argument - you do so with as little bias as possible, and use your best judgment as to how you reason.

- Recently one of our (the Council's) new members asked a question about his value as a member given he was in the marketing field and not the uniformed service - I responded that his thoughts are invaluable to me as the many problems, conditions and challenges that face us revolve around people. In many ways - given the tendency for people to identify themselves with groups - a profession that advocates, sells and appeals may be more relevant then my own - if I show up in ACUs and my mustache it probably means we already have a serious problem - his opinion may help us avoid that.

-Given that I was thinking about the many other professions that can us better understand our environment and challenges through the cycle of conflict prevention/preserving a peace, conflict resolution, conflict termination/implementing a lasting peace and came up with a list of professions I wish were represented here:

Education Professionals - I'm talking from elementary teacher to high school principal to professors of Humanities, Arts, and Sciences.

Medical Professionals - Doctors, nurses, nutritionists, administrators, Insurance agents, etc.

An Economist - Understanding market forces is critical I believe.

The NGO community - You have capacity and understanding that may help us avoid terrible consequences for all involved

Geologists, meteorologists, climatologists, and Geographers - your understanding of the environment may help build capacity, consider options, identify problems and trends and understand the physical world which impacts lives.

Civil Engineers, sociologists, and those who deal with people and where people live - This is about humans and their environment - your understanding about how people live is paramount to preserving the focus on people.

Small business entrepreneurs - helping people to find independence in financial terms and preserve their dignity is one of the keys toward building tolerant, pluralistic societies free from that type of large scale violence and instability - people find much less to differentiate themselves from others if their basic needs are met.

Journalist or media professional - you bring the perspective of considering and evaluating vast amounts of information and commenting on it for public consumption. You are in tune with how people listen and perceive and your objectivity may prevent miscommunication and adverse consequences.


This list is not exhaustive and I apologize if I did not name a particular profession or interest. I hope you will consider that if you are engaged in something, you probably have something to offer. If you are wondering why you should offer your perspective freely - I suggest you consider the world that we live in. You need only Google a Friedman, a Kaplan, a Barnett, or Huntington - or anyone else who has considered the current world and its future to recognize that globalization is a continuing theme and that because of technology it is occurring faster - what goes on outside of where you live does impact where you live. Your efforts may help prevent or alleviate not only personal and wide spread suffering, but may make your own life, those of your family, friends, and citizens better. Yo may preserve and foment a better life for our posterity. It is certain that at times there will be friction and that we will disagree, that is OK - it is even healthy! I hope that if you can participate, or know someone who can participate and bring insights - then you will do so and urge them to do so.

Best Regards, Rob Thornton

Steve Blair
09-06-2007, 06:27 PM
I'm not a military member, nor do I play one on TV....:)

However, I do work for ROTC, paid my dues as an Air Force brat, and have been interested in military history and theory since I was about eight years old. I've learned here, and hope that I've passed along the occasional speck of wisdom at the same time.

Small wars are small only in terms of the number of troops committed. In terms of scope, impact, and resources (in a holistic sense, not just "dollars on target") they are very broad and touch on many areas of society and government that people don't necessarily think about. Our membership is already broad, but every new, thoughtful addition is welcome and needed.

Tom Odom
09-06-2007, 06:45 PM
Rob

Good post and I agree completely. We have a pool of knowledge here that covers the experience spectrum, the cultural gamut, and spans the globe.

Best

Tom

RTK
09-06-2007, 07:06 PM
This might not be a bad sticky for new users to read. Speaking of which (because I can't remember) do you have to read the intro sticky before posting the first time? Is there a way to get the intro sticky to pop up before the first post, just to make sure?

Having said that, I have no problem with others coming here and imparting wisdom. I do have problems with the drive bys and people who don't put their knowledge into a context (ie. no intro post, no user profile, etc). I think we do a good job as a council of policing these people up quickly and they, in turn, are quick to reply and correct. Is there a way to streamline the registration process or make profile completion a mandatory, "do not pass go" station before their first posts?

Graycap
09-06-2007, 08:54 PM
Hey Rob, reading from your post maybe I could be one SWC superstar! :D

My curriculum:

I'm from Italy

Engineer graduated at Milan University in 1992

Military experience: Army second lieutenant in Italian Army (artillery). At that time In Italy there was compulsory military service and I volunteered to serve as an official. That made my service duration longer. Not involved in any real operation (the only one active abroad at that time was Somalia) but I have taken part at my regiment's training for partecipation in the Army intervention in Sicily against Mafia's territorial control.

Working position: small entrepreneur in heavy machinery maintenance (we work on cranes and aerial platforms)

Part-time : I write, when I can find spare time, for an italian webzine http://www.paginedidifesa.it (http://www.paginedidifesa.it/) about coin and irregular warfare. This is the principal reason why I visit regularly this incredible site.

Three different characters in one person...Maybe too much ;)

But as you can see my post count is running low..

The reasons: First of all the very high level of dicussions. I'm here to learn. This community has so much experience embedded that I've nothing to add.
Maybe it's difficult for you to imagine how this wall seems high.
The second reason is my poor ability (my fault!) to write in english. I read perfectly this language but to write at the level requested by this forum is difficult.:(

In this very moment I'm realizing that I never introduced myself in the dedicated thread ...I'm flying at the Tell Us About You topic in a second!

Thanks to you all for your information and experience sharing. It's invaluable.

And now back to lurking.

Graycap

Rob Thornton
09-06-2007, 09:02 PM
Hi Greycap,
Being from Tennessee, some might challenge my ability at English as well:D - reading your post it seems like you have very good command of the language indeed. I certainly understand you commitment to learn - however you have some incredible experience - as you get more comfortable with the council I hope you will benefit us all with that experience - but based on this:


Not involved in any real operation (the only one active abroad at that time was Somalia) but I have taken part at my regiment's training for partecipation in the Army intervention in Sicily against Mafia's territorial control.

Working position: small entrepreneur in heavy machinery maintenance (we work on cranes and aerial platforms)

I already want to hear what you have to say:)

My Best Regards, Rob

Ken White
09-06-2007, 09:06 PM
Some -- most -- Italian equipment is top class and from an engineering standpoint is worthy of discussion and emulation. The application tactically being the goal of discussing...

Plus the Carabinieri experience has some lessons.

JJackson
09-07-2007, 12:46 AM
Having just found this site I am interested in RTK's comment above re. profiles. I have no relevant specialist knowledge. I am a moderator on another completely unrelated site (about disease tracking H5N1 etc.) and have found many of the regular non-specialist posters make some of the most interesting - and knowledgeable - posts. While it is interesting to know if they are virologists or epidemiologists etc. I try to take each post on its own merits and not worry too much about the posters academic back ground, there are plenty of well credentialed 'experts' making factually incorrect statements.

I am British, a computer consultant, and my interest - in this area - relates to the foreign policies of Nation States and their global impact. As the US is the biggest player in this arena and its foreign policy seems to have an increasingly military face this site looks like it will be a very useful source of data.

Rob Thornton
09-07-2007, 01:06 AM
JJ,
You read like value added to me based on your solely on your ability to reason - however your IT skills, understanding of CoPs and the subject matter you cover on the other board will be of great use.

ref:

and have found many of the regular non-specialist posters make some of the most interesting - and knowledgeable - posts. While it is interesting to know if they are virologists or epidemiologists etc. I try to take each post on its own merits and not worry too much about the posters academic back ground, there are plenty of well credentialed 'experts' making factually incorrect statements.

I concur, both for the reason you mention - while Holiday Inn Express has poked fun at a non-professional making astute observations - there is certainly truth to the some of the most qualified people I've known have missed some pretty obvious connections in their own field based on the way they look at things.

I also would like to see greater interest and participation by concerned "non-professionals" (meaning those with no military experience) because it fosters civil-military relations by helping them understand war and peace from various perspectives, and provides them the opportunity to play a positive role by educating the uniformed professional, statesman, diplomat and other stakeholders in things that may have escaped them (or in my case us :)).

Best regards, Rob

RTK
09-07-2007, 01:11 AM
Having just found this site I am interested in RTK's comment above re. profiles. I have no relevant specialist knowledge. I am a moderator on another completely unrelated site (about disease tracking H5N1 etc.) and have found many of the regular non-specialist posters make some of the most interesting - and knowledgeable - posts. While it is interesting to know if they are virologists or epidemiologists etc. I try to take each post on its own merits and not worry too much about the posters academic back ground, there are plenty of well credentialed 'experts' making factually incorrect statements.

While I agree with your final statement, I always like to be sure that the bit of advise I'm taking for the real-time or near-real time application of foreign policy at the tactical level isn't from the shmedlap sitting in the office next to mine. It also helps gain a perspective from a different direction, one perhaps I'd not thought of having a relevent application in a certain realm. I'm also not into getting foreign policy tips from a sophomore in high school.

It's not that I'm just looking for some Soldier or policy maker's perspective. Regardless of background, I (and others) would like to see what exactly the background is for a lot of the same reasons Rob wrote on in the first post. Many have much to add to the discussion from a lot of different angles. We're just trying to figure out which angle people have.

Steve Blair
09-07-2007, 12:51 PM
It's not that I'm just looking for some Soldier or policy maker's perspective. Regardless of background, I (and others) would like to see what exactly the background is for a lot of the same reasons Rob wrote on in the first post. Many have much to add to the discussion from a lot of different angles. We're just trying to figure out which angle people have.

I think the angle or perception of a poster is important. In terms of experience...it's all relative. In my job I have to deal with military folks who think that 15+ years of military service qualifies them in some way to provide academic advice to college freshmen, even though they've never seen the inside of a college classroom themselves and have only the vaguest idea of what a college major really is. They don't understand how the university system works, but they think that their experience somehow translates directly to it.

One of the keys to experience, in my view, is knowing what you DON'T know. I've met people both in and out of the military who are seriously expert in their very narrow lanes of knowledge, but then think that that expertness (yeah...not a real word I don't think, but it sounds cool) somehow carries over to every other thing they touch. We're fortunate here in that we have a great number of people who understand what they don't know and are willing to offer up what they do know to help others fill their own gaps.

That said, I also find the high school sophomore foreign policy "expert" annoying, but at the same time it's interesting to see what they know, what they don't know, and what they THINK they know.

DavidLuckie
09-07-2007, 01:08 PM
I just signed up here.

I'm an Economist, with degrees in Economics and Military History. I spent 17 years working for the Corps of Engineers and got lured into the private sector last year.

I worked on several projects for the Gulf Regional Division from 2004 through 2006, serving in a "reachback" capacity for GRD. BG Walsh was my Division Commander when he was at South Atlantic Division (and I scored a Challenge Coin from him for my reachback work). :D

I now work for a Civil Engineering, Surveying, Landscape Architecture and Planning firm with a good history of military and civilian agency work.

I'm looking forward to learning, and I'll probably lurk more than post.

Regards,

Dave

marct
09-07-2007, 01:11 PM
Hi JJ,

It sounds like a lot of "value add" to me as well :D. I'm another one of the non-military people on this site. I'm a symbolic Anthropologist with an interest in applied symbology. I'm going to be supervising a directed reading course for a student of mine on the security effects of infectious diseases this term, so I will definitely want to pick your brains on that;).

I think Steve hit it nicely when he said "One of the keys to experience, in my view, is knowing what you DON'T know." In a lot of ways, the SWC is more a Community of Interest with a focus on Practice, and that is one of our greatest strengths.

Marc

doyle
09-07-2007, 06:27 PM
So I guess this is the thread to make an entrance. Another non-military member here. I lurk quite often checking the news stories and the new posts for the information that is not mainstream and the background intelligence that does not always come to the surface. I've been a member for quite some time, but not a participant. My qualifications are nil other than a deep interest in strategic maneuvering and foreign policy. Being an Information Technology professional I enjoy the details but see myself as a big picture person. I love trying to sort out how the details, innuendo, and undercurrents guide and shape the big picture.

My regional interests these days are focused on the South/Central Asian states. I tend to lurk for a while to get the feel for the regular posters and flavor of the boadr before jumping in with my thoughts but I lookl forward to the jump here. There is a lot of knowledge and as I see it, one of the biggest benefits of this site comes from the real world experiences of the posters.

Now, on to that profile...:D

Adam L
09-09-2007, 11:29 PM
Hi, another non-military guy here. Thanks for posting this. I really felt uncomfortable saying things before.

I just moved to the Albany, NY area from Calgary, AB where I have been for the past 5 or so years. I have been a history, especially military, buff since the age of 3. Although history has probably by far been my greatest passion the only area I think I have not taken to studying is botany. I have spent a great deal of my time working on several patents which unfortunately, due to financial qualifications, I have not been able to pursue as of now. I would like to say I am an amateur engineer, but alas I do not qualify. My main outlook about life is and has always been learn everything you can from whomever or whatever and to get used to the fact that there is always someone out there who knows more than you.

I stumbled across this site a few days ago and found it to be in line with my interests. I hope I can provide some meaningful contribution.


That said, I also find the high school sophomore foreign policy "expert" annoying, but at the same time it's interesting to see what they know, what they don't know, and what they THINK they know.

I utterly and thoroughly agree. I've felt the same way since I was in the 9th grade. LOL.

sennef@cimic-coe
11-25-2011, 10:06 AM
Here I had expected to find here a place where Coalition partners could have posted interesting stuff about their respective approaches and experiences in small wars.
Being Dutch, I could have posted on the Dutch 3 –D approach (the comprehensive approach of Defense, Diplomacy and Development) and its results in Uruzgan province;
or on how well the re-employment of the French colonial ‘ink blot’ strategy worked
or on the intensive use of cultural competence in an operational setting.

What I found instead is a place where coalition partners are being bashed plus unfavorable, unflattering and IMO uninformed comparisons with the American approach. This I find quite disappointing and not a real encouragement for posting.

davidbfpo
11-25-2011, 11:37 AM
Created following a post in a separate thread and raises an issue that needs an airing in its own thread and for members only. The title is mine, not the authors.

This post will come second now the post has been moved.

Fuchs
11-25-2011, 03:52 PM
You should have seen this place ins 2008...the Americans here have learned humility in comparison to 2007/08. ;)

Bill Moore
11-26-2011, 04:53 AM
David,

Where did you move the post from? Where did he feel his counter ideas were attacked? To be frank we are seeing more and more of that across the council. On the other hand some people are excessively thin skinned. We have four or more folks who repeatedly come up with same counter argument regardless of the topic (they get credit for staying on target, regardless of whether it is relevant or not), so a new person may have taken some their knee jerk responses out of context.

jcustis
11-26-2011, 05:28 AM
it was a necro-post Bill, from a short thread about NATO/Dutch issues.

It wasn't this one, but I came across it during the search for the one I had seen the comment: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=923&highlight=dutch

I think if he had seen that one, he's have realized that not everyone was down on the Dutch.

jmm99
11-26-2011, 07:26 PM
I did a Members List Search for those members with 100 or more posts (all years) and with at least one post in 2011. Less 3 SWAdmin "members", the total is 93. Of them, at least 22 are Non-USAians. Fair conclusion: the "SWC Culture" has not inhibited those posters.

Of course, belief is belief and perception is perception - and I ain't going to try to change anyone's mind in the face of a firm belief and/or perception. We are what we are.

From my vantage point, I'd like to see more posts on CIMIC (as to which, sennef@cimic-coe has obvious experience).

As Ken said (link (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=68110&postcount=909)) in response to sennef's first post (link (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=68122&postcount=910)):


from Ken
Welcome aboard, Sennef
Jump in -- you'll bring a great perspective...

Regards

Mike

Kiwigrunt
11-27-2011, 08:04 PM
Here I had expected to find here a place where Coalition partners could have posted interesting stuff about their respective approaches and experiences in small wars.

Here is a place where Coalition Partners can post interesting stuff about their perspectives and experiences. Bring it on.




Being Dutch, I could have posted on the Dutch 3 –D approach (the comprehensive approach of Defense, Diplomacy and Development) and its results in Uruzgan province….

Please do.




What I found instead is a place where coalition partners are being bashed plus unfavorable, unflattering and IMO uninformed comparisons with the American approach. This I find quite disappointing and not a real encouragement for posting.

It is not my perception and experience that coalition partners and other ‘outsiders’ are being bashed by a predominantly (and logically so) American membership in a way that is out of proportion to the criticism that they portray to their own side and actions (sure, amidst a lot of chest-beating). If it is your perception, and you find it disappointing, than perhaps that should be a real encouragement for posting. Please inform us.

Stan
11-28-2011, 03:03 PM
I may be one of the aforementioned four (4) that is causing trouble of late and although Fuchs has taught me to be humble :) I have yet to experience humiliation (probably on its way).

I'd have to echo Kiwigrunt's comments - we are far harder on our own than we are on foreigners herein.

Tough, Strange and Diverse crowd and getting thin skinned will only egg us on :eek:

I hope you stick around and teach us a little about the use of cultural competence. Isn't that in fact what your beef is ?

In closing...


Bring it on.

Fuchs
11-28-2011, 03:19 PM
What did I do?
I can't teach what I don't know. :D

- - - - -

I can in general understand the thread opener's problem.
It's a general problem in contact with most people from the U.S., though.

The relative isolation and the illusion that the anglophone world is big enough (=all that counts) allowed for a set of assumptions, myths, points of view that can easily collide with their non-anglophone counterparts.

On top of that, anglophone people are typically numerically superior on their (anglophone) turf and numerical superiority can easily mislead in regard to correctness of claims and views.


It's almost a hobby of mine to provoke cracks in their assumptions, myths, points of view... :p
I have a troll (or two) on my blog's comments section who calls me anti-American for it.

Stan
11-28-2011, 03:32 PM
I have a troll (or two) on my blog's comments section who calls me anti-American for it.

To be fair, you did tell me well in advance that your blog was not pro-USA. I didn't find your blog entries to be overtly negative however.

If all the non-anglophones refuse to participate we will be left with you and JMA :eek:

Fuchs
11-28-2011, 08:15 PM
My blog is pro-USA, it's just not pro-USA methods.

It's actually pro-every-country.
There's no reason to be against any country, but there are reasons to disagree with what countries tend to do, and this includes the own one.



In regard tot he USA and UK; I'm concerned that they're both problem and conflict generators and my country is way too close to them to tolerate this silently. "We" have had our historical dosage of allies pulling "us" (=our ancestors) into crappy situations - we don't need a repetition of that.

Israel is different; it creates conflict as well, but it's distant enough politically (no formal ally) and thus I don't care about its effects so much.

Same for Iran, which does not appear to radiate any problems our way (actually, Germany has a quite good reputation in Iran and is not being considered a foe or threat by Iranians afaik).

Couldn't care less about East Asia, for its conflicts certainly don't radiate to my country unless we work hard and stupidly on getting involved.

Stan
11-28-2011, 09:27 PM
You are taking this far too seriously ;)

We are supposed to create a friendly environment where other foreigners would join the fold (council) and then we hammer them in opposition even if they are right :eek:

With that, I'm going to leave you with a picture. This should make it clear why being involved with demining is so much fun :D

jmm99
11-29-2011, 04:31 AM
just lots of ordinance. :D

Suuri ruumis - ja taistelussa hotellipoijassa ! Sotilan marka unelma ...

BTW: All the computers are now working. :) But, I still can't do umlauts in SWC posts. You'll get it anyway.

Regards

Mike

Stan
11-29-2011, 02:51 PM
Hei Mika !
Älkää uneksiko nuoresta miehestä ;)

What I found is that after previewing and/or posting when you realize that the umlauts are missing, you hit "edit" and put the umlauts back and they stay for some reason. My Finnish is so bad that it may be easier without the umlauts.

This must be why all the foreigners won't post :eek:

Regards, Stan


just lots of ordinance. :D

Suuri ruumis - ja taistelussa hotellipoijassa ! Sotilan marka unelma ...

BTW: All the computers are now working. :) But, I still can't do umlauts in SWC posts. You'll get it anyway.

Regards

Mike

jmm99
11-29-2011, 03:39 PM
Test:


from Stan:
lk uneksiko nuoresta miehest

above after cut & paste, preview and post.


from Stan:
älkää uneksiko nuoresta miehestä

above after edit.

Regards

Mike

jmm99
11-29-2011, 04:13 PM
But, that good result occurs only if I use the basic Edit. If I Go Advanced, the umlauts are wiped out again.

Nonetheless, for a good deed done, you deserve at the least a virtual present - something that every "young man" should have:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Atrapasuenos.jpg/450px-Atrapasuenos.jpg

Keeps the bad dreams out and lets the good dreams in.

Originally an Ojibwe thing (asabikeshiinh, bawaajige nagwaagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamcatcher)), my wife has one similar to the one above hanging in the front door.

Regards

Mike

Stan
11-29-2011, 04:46 PM
I am speechless.

Say, you don't take that thing into the bedroom, do you :eek:

davidbfpo
11-29-2011, 05:11 PM
Alas beyond my IT skills, so on the attachment a more demure Italian sailor who beats IMO the bomb-riding USAF lady "de-miner", less lethal too and after all this is the 'Social Club' thread.

jmm99
11-29-2011, 06:06 PM
clarification needed. When you speak of taking "that thing" into the bedroom, do you speak of my wife or the Dreamcatcher. I personally think the Dreamcatcher is rather cute.

Regards

Mike

Stan
11-29-2011, 06:40 PM
David,
She's cute but her weapon is unloaded :o

Mike,
I meant that fuzzy looking thing you call a dreamcatcher.

Regret the confusion :D

Kevin23
01-01-2012, 01:29 AM
With drawdown's coming in Afpak along with the end of the War in Iraq, I feel we are at a crossroads over how to keep this site relevant going forward. I bring this issue up because I notice there has been an active dropoff in the number of articles on the main site, as well as the number of posts in the Council it's self recently.

Therefore, since I feel that SWJ/SWC has been such a valuable resource for both practitioners and students(like myself) of Small Wars. Espeically with debate and the exchange of information from those who have served in these types of conflicts, as well as those studying them, and who may face them in the future.

So I feel we are at a crossraods of how do we keep it relevant and a forum of discussion in regards to new challenges beyond Iraq & Afpak?

I'd like to hear the opinions of other's on here in terms of this issue, and what they think of the future of this site as well.

davidbfpo
01-01-2012, 01:50 AM
Kevin23,

There is an earlier thread 'SWC disappointing' about a month ago, which I started after a Dutch comment:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=14620

As SWC has a US majority IMHO it reflects the end of Iraq (OIF) and the intention to draw-down in Afghanistan. Instead of being active commitments, even war-fighting, Small Wars are likely to become more political and some may wish to "lurk" and not comment.

Bill Moore
01-01-2012, 03:35 AM
I hope the community doesn't feel OIF and OEF are the only small wars in the world worthy of discussion and study. I realize they're the only small wars that we recently sent thousands of troops of to, so it is only natural that there may be members and viewers from the U.S. and elsewhere that will visit less frequently or leave the community altogether. On the other hand, since OIF and OEF-A were deeply flawed from a policy stand point, so deeply flawed they were abberrations in the study of small wars, it will be good news for the study of small wars when they pass into history. Africa, Central Asia, S. Asia, SE Asia are teeming with small wars that our media doesn't cover, which is why it is important we attempt to increase the number of contributions from non-U.S. writers and participants. I think we probably have chased some off with our biases, especially the general bias towards the approach to small wars that has been propagated in FM 3-24. I have yet to see an article from a Thailand security force that discusses their small war in Southern Thailand, or their successful COIN operation against a communist insurgency in the 70s. There is amble room for African authors to contribute. Fortunately we're seeing articles from members who served in India's security forces, but it would be nice to see the same from Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. There are plenty of other forums that address events in the world outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, but even those topics should remain of interest to professionals as their conflicts evolve over time.

I agree that membership will downsize, but I don't think and strongly hope the site doesn't fade away. It is too important, it is a great forum to exchange ideas, and have your ideas challenged in a forum that you'll never find in any of our professional institutions.

MikeF
01-01-2012, 12:46 PM
sennef@cimic-coe,

Bitching does not help.

Send us an article. We are constrained ONLY by the submissions of our authors.

You can reach me at submit@smallwarsjournal.com or mike@smallwarsjournal.com

MikeF
01-01-2012, 12:47 PM
We are only constrained by what authors submit.

Encourage others to send in submissions to submit@smallwarsjournal.com or mike@smallwarsjournal.com

selil
01-01-2012, 05:46 PM
Small Wars Journal/Council has been invaluable in helping me modify and codify strategies for cyber warfare. I do fear that the "lessons learned" will be lost.

jcustis
01-01-2012, 08:01 PM
Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgement.

I saw this adage just this morning before checking here, and we do stand a lot to lose if the hard-won experience isn't memorialized for others to draw from in the future, and we don't change with the changing world. I do not, however, think the future is necessarily bleak as OIF ends and OEF begins to wind down. Plenty of new challenges, but not bleak.

With the respective surges in either conflict, we also saw a surge in silliness, or rather a few people who came here with it in their head that they were going to see their avatar or name memorialized with a provocative article or string of posts that advanced their slanted agenda. I suppose we all have an agenda, but I hope that illustrates my point that there has been a signal-to-noise ratio that hopefully tilts towards more signal in the future. Down-sizing and refocus can very much be good things.

I can't remember exactly when it happened, but I made the recommendation to restructure the board to accommodate Iraq and Afghanistan (and other OEF hotspots) in greater detail, and that led to the structure you see in the Council right now. Other good restructuring came over time and across changes in servers, and I think we'll see other changes down the road as things morph and change for the better.

Specific interest will wane across some topics, and some forums may experience a virtual "death", but I'm confident there will be interest in all things small wars for as long as we fail to resolve our differences and interests through peaceful, constructive means.

To the specific question, we can keep the Council and Journal relevant by:

1) Sharing the Small Wars empire with folks may not have heard about the valuable content we have here. If we participate in other forums, linking in to content here can be the initial spark.

2) Submitting articles ourselves to add to the content. We all have our peculiar interests, and every article requires a touch of history that everyone here has a bit of insight into, sometimes in their own very unique way.

3) Supporting the SWJ/SWC financially. I have fired off a paypal donation or two in the past, and I certainly do not offer enough financial support to compensate for the brilliant content that I get to enjoy. I will pick up a Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy magazine on occasion, but I rarely do so nowadays because there is already excellent content to rummage through here. The writing competition of 2009 drew some excellent and insightful articles, and I hope another can be supported soon. I'd contribute to the next one in a heartbeat, if that support would allow for prizes that draw the best writers out there. I believe I'd also be quick to contribute towards the kitty if it resulted a specific anthology of articles surrounding a theme or two. If that strikes a chord with anyone reading this, make those thoughts known and I'm sure the SWJ team would consider the concept.

Regards,

JC

carl
01-01-2012, 09:21 PM
I have yet to see an article from a Thailand security force that discusses their small war in Southern Thailand, or their successful COIN operation against a communist insurgency in the 70s. There is amble room for African authors to contribute.

Bill, here is an article from a Journal past about Thai Village Security Teams.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/thai-village-security-lessons-for-afghanistan

I thought it was very good and pointed out a possible way to help things in Afghanistan.

Bill Moore
01-01-2012, 10:50 PM
Posted by Carl,


Bill, here is an article from a Journal past about Thai Village Security Teams.

Thanks. I do recall this article and it is good, but what I was trying to get across is I haven't seen an article from a Thai soldier or police officer on the conflict, so we can see it through their eyes. I suspect Jeff Moore isn't Thai :D

The reality is many cultures tend to prohibit independent thinking and views, and writing an article truly could be detrimental to their careers or worse. In that case we'll have to rely on other sources, but in those cases we miss an important point of view. I would love to see more Afghans write articles that are critical of our strategy in their country and explain why.

Listening to one another is important, but listening to voices from other countries is critical if we're serious about learning.

carl
01-02-2012, 12:36 AM
Bill:

I wonder if we could take advantage of the huge immigrant community in the US. There are people from everywhere and I'll bet a surprising number have relevant experience or have relatives back in the old country who do. If somehow we could reach out to them, we could get around the reluctance to publish. What the heck would a guy who owns a sandwich shop and has a green card care about what the guys in the old country's HQ think.

For example, there are very large numbers of Vietnamese in the US, people from both sides of the line. I don't know if there are Vietnamese veterans associations around but if there are they could be contacted and asked if any of their people would like to submit material dealing with their experiences. The submissions wouldn't have to be in English if arrangements could be made for translation. That would be one of the keys to getting submissions, not having to write in English.

G Martin
01-02-2012, 05:39 PM
I think we broaden the discussion and articles to include other examples of small wars- instead of being so OEF/OIF-specific- like others have said. That said, it is very difficult to get politicians and their staffs to get some deeper knowledge of those fights, much less fights that aren't in the news...

I'd echo getting funding up in order to sponsor writing competitions and also conferences- either unilateral or co-hosting or just participating in somehow. I personally haven't been involved in them- but I know there are some IW, etc. conferences held annually- and getting involved with those, maybe SWJ sponsoring a contributor or two or an editor participation/involvement/attendance might be beneficial.

Dayuhan
01-03-2012, 03:35 AM
In many places it's difficult for serving members of a military (or those employed in government) to publish anything that deviates in any way from the official line, and in some places that might apply even to those in retirement. Not all military/political cultures are tolerant of dissent. It still might be possible to attract input from other stakeholders in conflict areas, who might have more freedom to express original views.

I've always wanted to see participation from current or past insurgents, though it's easier to talk about than to arrange.

For the journal it might be worth putting out groups of articles focused on specific regions or issues, asking experts to contribute and discuss varying viewpoints.

I think there may be a perception in some quarters that the site is primarily by and for Americans and those in the military, and that participants form outside those parameters are not as easily accepted. I don't think that perception is accurate at all, but as with so many perceptions it can have an impact even if it's not accurate. I'm not sure how that could be overcome, but it might help to have roundtable discussions on specific issues and invite or actively solicit participation from serious, informed foreign critics of US policy.

For the Council... I wouldn't say quality has declined, but I do notice that some of the people who were active participants when I joined, and whose posts made me want to join, are no longer active. That's probably inevitable; participants will always come and go. The question of how to build the participant base while maintaining quality will always be here, I suppose.

Fuchs
01-03-2012, 05:09 AM
In many places it's difficult for serving members of a military (or those employed in government) to publish anything that deviates in any way from the official line, and in some places that might apply even to those in retirement.

The Armor and IIRC Infantry Journal appeared to be platforms for occasional dissenting opinions during the 90's, but according to my observation / memory this largely ceased to be true when the top forced the "we need to be quickly deployable for relevance = bureaucratical budget retainment" Stryker hysteria on the armor and infantry branches.
By that time the journals turned into propaganda outlets.

jcustis
01-03-2012, 08:38 AM
It would be nice if the guys who keep the lights on here, Bill and Dave, could weigh in.

Where this place is, relative to where it was when things started out, and their vision of where they think it needs to go, it pretty important.

It's also important to define relevancy. For whom? Academics, practitioners, hobbyists...everyone? That sets the context as well.

Steve Blair
01-03-2012, 02:32 PM
It would be nice if the guys who keep the lights on here, Bill and Dave, could weigh in.

Where this place is, relative to where it was when things started out, and their vision of where they think it needs to go, it pretty important.

It's also important to define relevancy. For whom? Academics, practitioners, hobbyists...everyone? That sets the context as well.

Concur, but we should also remember that this same sort of thing happened after Vietnam. No more limited wars was the cry then, and we're seeing the same sort of thing now. We're also seeing a bit of rehash of "any good soldier can deal with guerrillas." Maybe yes, maybe no, but it's always helpful to have reminders of what can work and what is a really bad idea floating around somewhere.

Dayuhan
01-04-2012, 09:37 AM
Winding down the "big small wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan might be an opportunity to devote more attention to smaller small wars around the world, including those in which the US is not an active participant. It might also be an opportunity to advance discussion of the policy issues surrounding the decisions to enter small wars or assist the combatants. There's no shortage of material for discussion there, and there will certainly be useful observations of Iraq and Afghanistan long after we leave.

Hippofeet
02-02-2012, 05:26 PM
Sheesh. The world is on fire. If global financial situations don't take an upturn, there will be a ton of small wars. There is so much going on everywhere that just doesn't receive conveniently viewable coverage here. I like anything on here from someone who is actually doing things, although it is hard to tell, people don't really put their C.V. On every post. I was surprised to see this subject after a long absence, I was thinking that asymmetric warfare was the new norm, and SWJ in a great position to be right on it.

davidbfpo
02-03-2012, 09:48 PM
I had this comment via a PM and have the author's consent to use this. It reflects their long-time membership and long absences from posting.


In my opinion, the vast majority of posts could be grouped into 3 bins: 1. submission of ideas and articles rejected by other publications, 2. retired mil folks with an axe to grind, 3. trigger pullers arguing over low tactical issues. While those discussions are interesting, I would rather see a discussion of more operational/strategic level items and issues. I have always appreciated the ability of members of the SWC to answer RFIs that no one else seem to be able to answer. I see SWC as a forum to try out ideas on an educated audience, thus tolerate responses that are predictable in order to get the one or two that are true gems. I would love to see discussions on what our options are regarding NATO, Israel, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, etc. I would like to see more historical analysis of past small wars and what the true lessons are/were, and of what utility they are to us today. Just a few thoughts.

JMA
02-04-2012, 06:28 AM
I had this comment via a PM and have the author's consent to use this. It reflects their long-time membership and long absences from posting.

I am often amazed at the clarity of 'non-participants'!

The basic structure around here is good - Journal, blog and council. They have each developed a character of their own and as such should attract a different group of readers/contributors. The web stats would be the guide as to which attracts how much attention.

Within the council there should be a place for discussions on 'low level tactics' and individual weapons (for those interested) as well as opportunities to discuss or just read (lurk) stuff on different subjects.

Why are there so few contributers on the council? Perhaps the first is that people tend to post as themselves and (in true military fashion) are not prepared to speak out against the official line in open forum. There can't be a discussion where everyone agrees. Perhaps some want to use their presence here to boost their reputation (in some way). Then my favourite beef about moderators. Moderating online discussions is a skill - it is more guiding and setting a direction for the discussion than merely playing the quick-draw sheriff.

Finally, let and encourage people to find a home here for information of their personal interest (remembering this is not some preparation for a promotion exam where the stuff here is required reading). Let people enjoy themselves.

Wyatt
02-04-2012, 08:12 PM
I hope the content stays around. Ive been using this site as reading since becoming part of the military and as I progress towards my first career goal, this site has given me resources and places to look for information on current conflicts, history and non us perspectives. Most everything we focus on is at the tactical level, even the "uw" stuff. For me personally, the debates help me frame much of what I've been exposed to in the mil more effectively.

Wyatt

Ray
06-05-2012, 08:35 AM
I do hope that the SWJ/SWC continues to have the excellent article and posts that are current.

It is a treasure trove of opinions and commentaries as also links to other articles of import.

I don't think SWJ/ SWC can fade out.

Michael C
10-25-2012, 09:10 PM
One of the more popular posts on the Small War Council asks, "What can we do to keep the SWJ relevant?" Maybe the answer for the SWJ council is, "Quit insulting each other."

I stopped posting on here because people like Bill Moore and "Of the Troops" immediately descend to calling me an idiot or the author of "highly naive articles and this is just another one to add to the compost pile." As a result, I only check the council side when someone links to my article. As usual, most of the "discussion" chooses to personally attack me and avoid the argument.

You gentlemen stay classy.

Bill Moore
10-26-2012, 06:03 AM
You're right Michael, I did have a knee jerk reaction to your article or blog post, so I removed the personal attack and apologize for making it. I actually agree with the last paragraph of your article, but strongly disagree with most of it. Not sure why it elicted such a visceral reaction, it was probably just the straw that broke the camel's back that day. We had several generals that were highly incompetent in this war, but still isn't the reason we're struggling in Astan, the reason we're struggling is there isn't military solution that we're willing to pursue. We could have any number of great GOs in charge and it wouldn't change much, and the same is true for Iraq. Why do you think we did so well during Desert Storm and in Panama? Clearly defined and feasible military objectives. In OIF and OEF-A the military did well initially, but we started social engineering we understandably got off track.

If SWJ is going to stay relevant I think it will have to move past population centric COIN. There are a lot of ways for us to achieve our objectives without willingly stepping into guagmires.

davidbfpo
07-28-2013, 12:10 PM
I came across this thread by accident, but what Rob Thornton posted nearly six years ago remains relevant today.

From my position in the UK and being an "armchair" warrior I sense SWC is in the doldrums currently. As Ken White has posted perhaps the USA, where the vast majority of members come from, is "war weary" after two gruelling wars and no prospect of 'small wars' ending.

SWC appears of late to have a group of mainly retirees or civilians posting regularly. With the DoD plus undergoing cuts, perhaps there is an in-service perception it is best to have a low profile.

With the benefit of an exchange with an American member SWJ is still going strong, as a recognised quality outlet for articles. Note many SWJ articles are written - my perception - by non-members, which is not a problem.

Added later:There is no requirement for SWC members to announce who they are, some do so voluntarily and anonymity is an option.

jcustis
07-28-2013, 12:41 PM
I was thinking of doldrums as well David. I've also taken note of the topics "guests" tend to view, and they are as broad and wide as is the issue of small wars.

Then we get to the Journal, where we see a very broad range of input and the authors are very happy to defend their work against critique and comment--in the comments section mostly. I read that as a belief that there is simply more personal value (to these guests) to have an article published in the Journal. That, or the current lack of peer review allows for a lower standard of critical thought and the investment of personal time is viewed as somehow worth effort, as compared to discussing said topic across 8 pages of SWC comments.

I instigated a remodel of the Council around 2007 if I remember correctly, and activity exploded as a result. Perhaps SWC is simply in a natural recession of sorts that has to compete with people's creative spare time in the Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram realms. I only use one of those formats (IG), and I can how that consumes time if I am not careful.

gute
07-28-2013, 05:25 PM
Topics, topics, topics. For me the topics I have interest in seem to have been discussed and there is not much more to add. For example I find the topics in the trigger puller threads to be of interest, but you guys hit that stuff years ago. Personally, I don't find most of the other topics of much interest, not even the law enforcement stuff and I'm a cop (kind of).

I know some of the well known members quit visiting/participating because of the quality of participants (hopefully I'm not one of "those people") and the focus of the site, topics.

All I know is I greatly appreciate this site and the members who started it. This site is my Facebook, Twitter and IG all wrapped into one.

Madhu
07-28-2013, 05:39 PM
I know some of the well known members quit visiting/participating because of the quality of participants (hopefully I'm not one of "those people") and the focus of the site, topics.

Yeah, I sorta got that vibe and I always hope I'm not one of "those people" too. I try and include links to academic papers to make up for it but what can you do? Not everyone will be interested in the same topics.

All great sites wax and wane, or simply wane after periods of intense interest. I can't think of one site I regularly visit that has the same traffic as in years past.

People get tired of social media, the time committment becomes too much, there is so much competition for eyeballs (look at War on the Rocks and the Infinity Journals), and specialist sites sometimes become overrun by people like me (sorry), outsiders that may ruin it a bit for specialists.

Regular commenters often want to start their own sites too which is the natural function of serial commenting, you start to imagine your own site dedicated to your own interests and with the sorts of participants you want.

Old Eagle
07-28-2013, 10:44 PM
Thanks for resurrecting the thread, David.

I read a lot of the threads, but simply don't post as much as previously. Not sure why.

I would certainly like to see Rob, TomO and some of the old timers chime back in from time to time.

I find that folks outside any given discipline often bring new perspectives that we old dogs don't have.

I remain impressed with the overall quality of the forum, and thank the moderators for assisting to keep it that way.

Bill Moore
07-28-2013, 11:47 PM
Topics, topics, topics. For me the topics I have interest in seem to have been discussed and there is not much more to add. For example I find the topics in the trigger puller threads to be of interest, but you guys hit that stuff years ago. Personally, I don't find most of the other topics of much interest, not even the law enforcement stuff and I'm a cop (kind of).

I know some of the well known members quit visiting/participating because of the quality of participants (hopefully I'm not one of "those people") and the focus of the site, topics.

All I know is I greatly appreciate this site and the members who started it. This site is my Facebook, Twitter and IG all wrapped into one.

It does seem we're often kicking a dead horse. I also agree with whoever wrote that the quality of the articles overall are going down, and if peer review was mandated SWJ would return to it original quality level articles. All too often we see long articles posted that are poorly articulated arguments to no discernible end. It is these authors that tend to be the most sensitive to critical reviews/comments. We also seemed to have morphed into two camps (those that are critical of COIN and those who are die hard supporters), which means we're about as dysfunctional as Congress when it comes to promoting balanced solutions for future defense policy designers.

Despite all the criticisms and the loss of some of our post valued participants it is still the most relevant blog on Small Wars and related topics that I have found.

jcustis
07-29-2013, 12:42 AM
David, I'll second Old Eagle's comments and say your efforts have done immeasurable good here.

gute
07-29-2013, 01:30 AM
Despite all the criticisms and the loss of some of our post valued participants it is still the most relevant blog on Small Wars and related topics that I have found.

Absolutely agree 100% with the above quote and jcustis' remarks about David. Really, thank you to all the moderators who keep this site going and relevant.

Morgan
07-29-2013, 03:09 AM
It does seem we're often kicking a dead horse. I also agree with whoever wrote that the quality of the articles overall are going down, and if peer review was mandated SWJ would return to it original quality level articles.

I, too, hope I'm not looked upon as one of "those people" that is less than qualified to add to the discussion on here.

As to the topics being discussed, while some have been discussed at length, some have barely been addressed.

For example I just ran across an article about a proposal to create a new agency....US Office of Contingency Operations. Apparently, Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas has put forth HR 2606 that advocates the creation of an agency that is designed to focus on stabilization & reconstruction operations instead of relying on ad-hoc relationships seen during the last 10+ years. I advocated something similar (Bureau of Strategic Assistance) in an earlier article. I think this proposal is a pretty good idea. Any takers on this new topic of discussion?

Bill Moore
07-29-2013, 03:26 AM
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr2606#overview


4% chance of getting past committee.
1% chance of being enacted.

This overall idea is far from new, I only posted the link above to provide "one" perspective on the possibility of it going anywhere.

The following link is more entertaining.

http://www.phibetaiota.net/2010/01/journal-us-office-for-contingency-operations/


“That proposal may be controversial in some circles — particularly in areas the development community, where there’s concern that USOCO might represent a more cumbersome bureaucratic structure. But Bowen’s idea is attracting some powerful allies, like the widely admired former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. “I do support the concept,” Crocker, the incoming dean of the George Bush School of Government at Texas A&M University, emailed me. “The current situation requires a perpetual reinventing of wheels and a huge amount of effort by those trying to manage contingencies.”

Don't forget rice bowls (U.S. Dept of State and USAID).

http://www.state.gov/j/cso/releases/other/2013/206410.htm


GOAL #1. Make an impact in three or four places of strategic significance: In 2012, CSO focused 80 percent of its effort on four major engagements – Burma, Honduras, Kenya and Syria. CSO also worked in more than 15 other countries, including Afghanistan, Belize, the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan.

Clearly an argument can be made that all these countries are so much better since CSO has intervened on their behalf; however, I can't make it.

It is a worthwhile topic to resurface, I realize OCO is a new proposal, but it is the same gal we talked about before. She is just wearing a different dress.

My two cents:

Cent one: If we're going to do it, we should of course endeavor to do it effectively.

Cent two: There is no clear linkage between doing reconstruction and stability in areas where the conflict is based on ethnic conflict. So even if we do it get right, which is doubtful, what will it accomplish? That is how I would frame the debate.

jmm99
07-29-2013, 05:03 AM
My three or four cents worth.

My premise is that people post because of a combination (variable per person and per post) of (1) a desire to add value useful to others; and (2) self-interest.

Nothing about that is novel. Just over a century ago, James Malony Spaight (http://airminded.org/biographies/j-m-spaight/), in his 1911 classic "War Rights on Land", pp.17-18, made both points:


Many causes are at the bottom of the general neglect of the study of war law. The time of officers is fairly well occupied, nowadays, in regimental duties and training work. They say, who know, that the British Army is a finer engine of war to-day than it has ever been. Most gladly and thankfully I accept that statement ; yet I am entirely and most sincerely convinced that one small, not unimportant, though neglected, part of the machinery needs oiling and attention. War law has never been presented to officers in an attractive form, as it might have been (I submit with diffidence) if the writers had insisted on the historical, human, and practical side rather than on the legal and theoretical one.

and:


... for an ambitious subaltern who wishes to be known vaguely as an author and, at the same time, not to be troubled with undue inquiry into the claim on which his title rests, there can be no better subject than the International Law of War. For it is a quasi-military subject in which no one, in the army or out of it, is very deeply interested, which everyone very contentedly takes on trust, and which may be written about without one person in ten thousand being able to tell whether the writing is adequate or not.

While I do post for Spaight's higher purpose (with emphasis I hope on the historical, human, and practical side, and staying away from the theoretical legal weeds), I also admit that I post for the fun of it - the dilettante subaltern at work. :D

This is strictly a personal preference, but I like SWC better than SWJ - the former being more fun to me. Others prefer to read and not post at all. Others prefer more academic articles and post to SWJ. Different strokes, etc.

And, for a lot of military people today, I expect that decompression is a more important project than being an author (dilettante or otherwise ;)).

BL: I intend to keep on trucking.

Regards

Mike

John T. Fishel
07-29-2013, 02:42 PM
This is my opinion. As such it is clearly open to challenge. But it is based on a fair historical perspective and so might be worth something. At the height of the COIN revival I was fearful that we would fall back into the default mode of trying to forget about small wars as we did after Vietnam. We also did the same after every single major war we have fought. After the Revolution we fought Indians in the Northwest Territories and Florida but then along came the War of 1812 with a major conventional enemy (and we darn near lost the war). After New Orleans we fought Indians again all over the West. Then along came the Mexican War against a major conventional enemy and Scott, Taylor, and Doniphan led us to victory. After that we had to learn to fight Indians all over again. In 1861 along came the civil war with West Pointers fighting West Pointers. Big armies on the move. Lots of technical innovation. After it was all over and Sheridan had scared the French out of Mexico massing 50,000 troops on the border, we had to learn to fight Indians again. Then we fought Spain in 1898 - it is amazing how many former Confederate generals marched again to the sound of the guns in the blue and khaki uniforms of the US, Fitzhugh Lee and William Oates come to mind. In the aftermath, the dirty little wars in the Philippines and Caribbean raised up and Pershing chased Pancho Villa all over Northern Mexico but we had to learn that these weren't the kinds of wars we were prepared to fight because people were not only not learning the lessons, they weren't even recording them. WWI was followed by the Banana Wars which only the Marines were interested enough to record but they were also preparing for the next big one. They published their Small Wars Manual at almost the same time as their Tentative Landing Operations Manual which was a major influence on conventional operations in WWII.

The point of all this is that neither our political nor our military leaders like the small, nasty, dirty wars. We all want to fight the "big one" (why are we pivoting toward Asia? - not merely for the obvious and real threat of China). As the small wars wind down, interest fall off among both military and civilian national security analysts. This leaves the door open for smart, intelligent challenges to the prevailing wisdom of small wars - challenges like those of Gian Gentile both on these pages and his new book. As for our junior officers, they are looking at being assigned to units planning against conventional conflicts with China (perhaps) and certainly not toward Iraq now seen in the media as a totally foolish effort without any redeeming social virtue or Afghanistan which our president says we are leaving in 2014 regardless of conditions on the ground. The Administration has floated the idea of no residual force of any kind - the zero option. and who wants to be the last casualty of a war we have deemed is not worth fighting anyway? As a result, interest in our broad topic has died down.

This fact - loss of broader interest - makes our forum (Journal and Council alike) all the more important. Here we can not only record the lessons we needed to learn but debate them and, perhaps, allow the next generation to actually learn them and not make the same mistakes that we and previous generations made.

On that note

Cheers

JohnT

Steve Blair
07-29-2013, 04:43 PM
I agree with you, John, and have commented many times here about the similarities I feared (and am seeing) between what the Army (and military generally) did after Vietnam and what they're doing now. It's been something of a historical pattern for the US, and one that is concerning (or should be, at least). Information, knowledge, discussion, and historical context for small wars are all things that need to be preserved and continued. If not us, who?

Fuchs
07-29-2013, 05:56 PM
The pattern which irritates me is that the U.S. returns into the wars of choice business again and again, no matter how poor an investment it is.

I don't care about whether it's a very poor or skilled and thus simple poor investment. Neither should be done.

slapout9
07-29-2013, 07:54 PM
I go all the way back to the Urban Operations Journal (precursor to the Small Wars Journal) I can still remember when we couldn't even break 100 as far as members go. So what happened? It is pretty typical as far systems thinking goes. We went from the formative phase to the normative phase (which lead to the revamped Journal section) to where we are now.........the adaptive or integrative phase. We have to change(adapt) or we will get all extinct and stuff:eek: Not a good option. More is less...we need to focus. The Journal is competing with the Council....not good IMO.... we may need to kill it! Or we need to kill the Council:( but we have to choose IMO. I always felt all naked and stuff when I posted at the Journal.... it is nice and cozy over here.....that might be good but could also be bad.

Some of us are facing age and health issues that were not present at the Big Bang. Nobody knows where Ken White is! We are in deep sh@@ just like the country. Only one thing left to or figure out. We need a great Strategic Reawakening(is that a word?) anyway just my random thoughts from the cultural center of the Universe.

Bill Moore
07-29-2013, 09:43 PM
I agree with you, John, and have commented many times here about the similarities I feared (and am seeing) between what the Army (and military generally) did after Vietnam and what they're doing now. It's been something of a historical pattern for the US, and one that is concerning (or should be, at least). Information, knowledge, discussion, and historical context for small wars are all things that need to be preserved and continued. If not us, who?

Institutionally yes, at the individual level I still see a high level of interest. Those of us in the SW community have to take some responsibility also, because we have a number of amateurish articles that claim all future wars will be small wars, and there has been too much non-critical comments on our COIN doctrine within our own community. In many ways the Small Wars tribe isn't that much different than the Big Wars tribe.

If we were more self-critical and receptive to non-doctrinal ideas instead of being perceived as COIN doctrine Kool-Aid drinkers (doesn't apply to all, or even most, but it does to many of our most vocal and well known SW advocates), and we provided options that supported achieving the balance between capabilities that SECDEF Gates advocated we may be in a different place. I too share your concerns that we'll throw the baby out with the bathwater, based on the past decade of far less than successful small wars. If our community provides options for future defense policy makers that address all security concerns (and hopefully our diehards in SWJ realize there are more security concerns than Small Wars) then maybe we'll bring the more rational and deep thinkers on war back into the community? SWJ has provided a great service to the national security discussions from the tactical to strategic levels, we just need to realize where our nation is at now and find a way to contribute to that dialogue in way that keeps small wars in the discussion.

Steve Blair
07-29-2013, 10:32 PM
Institutionally yes, at the individual level I still see a high level of interest. Those of us in the SW community have to take some responsibility also, because we have a number of amateurish articles that claim all future wars will be small wars, and there has been too much non-critical comments on our COIN doctrine within our own community. In many ways the Small Wars tribe isn't that much different than the Big Wars tribe.

If we were more self-critical and receptive to non-doctrinal ideas instead of being perceived as COIN doctrine Kool-Aid drinkers (doesn't apply to all, or even most, but it does to many of our most vocal and well known SW advocates), and we provided options that supported achieving the balance between capabilities that SECDEF Gates advocated we may be in a different place. I too share your concerns that we'll throw the baby out with the bathwater, based on the past decade of far less than successful small wars. If our community provides options for future defense policy makers that address all security concerns (and hopefully our diehards in SWJ realize there are more security concerns than Small Wars) then maybe we'll bring the more rational and deep thinkers on war back into the community? SWJ has provided a great service to the national security discussions from the tactical to strategic levels, we just need to realize where our nation is at now and find a way to contribute to that dialogue in way that keeps small wars in the discussion.

Bill,

One of the problems I've seen historically is that this topic is usually viewed as an "either/or" sort of statement. There's too often a tendency to shove one of the topics off the table to make room for the other (or the "flavor of the month"). Obviously there are more security concerns than Small Wars, but small wars are the problem that just doesn't want to go away. I don't vocally advocate for one over the other: obviously they're equally important in a sense, with one or the other getting priority depending on the international situation. But I do worry that (yet again) we'll shed any number of hard-learned lessons (or learn the wrong ones) in our rush away from the current situation. We've done that so well too many times in the past.

gute
07-30-2013, 02:15 AM
Maybe some of our council discussions, opinions of the majority (or not) should make its way into SWJ as editorials. Maybe SWC Calls for Papers done through the forums and edited by the SWJ for publication on the website - dumb idea?

Just tryin to think outside the box.

jmm99
07-30-2013, 04:37 AM
Admittedly, we at SWC are "Part of the Small Wars Journal Empire" :D; but the "Empire" is neither the Rand Corp. nor the Brookings Inst. - its editorial staff is limited and SWJ articles receive no or minor editing. SWJ articles are very much a "roll your own" proposition.

The rules for submitting content to SWJ and its Blog are here, Submit Content (http://smallwarsjournal.com/content/submit-content). Those same rules provide a framework for creating full fledged articles within the confines of SWC.

First, write up the article in any word processor. I'd use .rtf format and then print the file to .pdf (I use doPDF; link (http://www.dopdf.com)). The .pdf file is then attached to an SWC post in the relevant thread (new or old); limit of 4 .pdf files per post, with 195KB per file.

To check file sizes, I selected the text from two recent SWJ articles: Back to the Basics: Chess, Poker & the Future of Warfare (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/back-to-the-basics-chess-poker-the-future-of-warfare); and Thinking and Writing About COIN (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/thinking-and-writing-about-coin). DoPDF creates .pdf files of 65KB and 80KB respectively.

So, I think your idea is basically sound and a good one, but the SWC poster who aspires to article publication will have to do the heavy lifting.

----------------
Bill, Steve et al.

While I think post-Vietnam is material history, we shouldn't forget that reform of the Army and Marines was the end result - albeit with more than a little trauma. Surely, there will be a lot to talk about - e.g, how to provide effective low-, medium- and high-intensity forces on a limited budget.

I'd say take a knee and watch what happens over the coming year; and see what 2014 will bring.

Regards

Mike

slapout9
07-30-2013, 06:33 AM
We did really lousy at the fund raiser this year to.

Bob's World
07-30-2013, 12:46 PM
I suspect that the SWC was built on several pillars, such as frustration, interest and hope.

Hope came with innocence, and a belief that we could "fix" these problems, or "win" these conflicts on our terms.

That innocence is lost, hope is forlorn, and interest is waning. This is human nature.

Perhaps the members, like the services, are gathering up their lessons learned from this experience and leaning forward for the next, hopefully "better" conflict.

One of the big tactical ideas born of the past decade was that of "population-centric approaches." The idea being that because people are so important in these types of conflicts that we must focus our efforts on understanding each valley, village and person, and then focus our engagement on "fixing" or "winning" them to what it is we hoped to accomplish. That is a very tactical view of populations and their role in these populace-based conflicts.

Applying a strategic lens to this sound concept reveals the reality that one cannot simply bribe, develop or secure a populace to what some illegitimate foreign system of governance wants for them; instead those illegitimate foreign systems must take their understanding of these local populations where they believe their foreign interests to be at stake and ask "how do I tailor my own actions and goals in a manner to be consistent with the fundamental needs of these people my actions will impact, and how do I best pursue those interests in a manner consistent with their culture(s).

It is about changing us, not them. It is about fixing our approach to governance, not theirs. Someday we will learn this, but at the institutional level it is an insight that escapes us.

So long as we continue to cast strategic problems in tactical terms, and recognize, select and promote strategic leaders for tactical prowess in the face of strategic failure this will likely continue to remain beyond our grasp.

Stan
07-30-2013, 07:02 PM
If I could have just 36 hours in a day to manage my interests and still hang onto a job :rolleyes:

The old farts are still around and most do wander in as time permits.

Sufficient interesting topics, more than enough intelligent people from every walk of life, just not enough time.

My excuse :cool:

TheCurmudgeon
07-31-2013, 01:53 AM
OK, first, I have had several beers, so my ramblings may be slightly more incoherent then they usually are, but I feel I must contribute. Right now we are in a funk. The Gentile's of the world are trying to convince everyone that small wars are no longer relevant. (to the theme song of the Beverly Hillbillies) "Near Peer competitors are just terrific, so they packed up their strategy and pivoted to the Pacific". Yeah, you go with that girl. As I heard Barrett say once: "China all grown up ... gonna be a looker." Here is the real deal. The next time troops will be put in harms way it will be in a small war. And if we don't do something about it, we will repeat the same mistakes we have in the past.

I for one am not willing to do that. With alcohol as my witness, I believe it is up to us to make this Journal into something that makes the news. I am not sure how, but I know why. I remember seeing a picture once that was entitled "the long grey line". It depicted West Point Cadets marching out of a fog. The representation was meant to demonstrate that there was a long history behind the Academy, but to me it was more generic (being an OCS type of guy). It represented the Soldiers past, present, and future. We will make the same mistakes again if those of us who have witnessed it first hand don't help find the answers.

To any of you still reading this rant, please, PLEASE, contribute to this journal. Even if you think you comments are not worthy. I asked for help with a project I was working on under the RFI section. I have over 1800 view, but only 47 posts (and half of those are mine). Come on people -- let us know what you think. Your opinion matters! That is why we fought the Germans at Pearl Harbor (sorry FUCHS).

OK, I am done now ...and I need another beer.

Please help keep this endeavor alive. It really is worth the effort.

The Curmudgeon (AKA LTC Stan Wiechnik)

jmm99
07-31-2013, 03:59 AM
Da Cur....

2000 views vs 47 posts, over a week, doesn't seem too bad to me. That's 42.5 views per post; and 285 views per day. I've had a long-running thread, The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=13239) (from May 2011), with 20500 views vs 166 posts, over ca. 800 days. That's 123.5 views per post; and 25.6 views per day. So, I'd say you beat expectations for what (IMO) was a somewhat specialized topic.

As the other Stan just said, there's a time factor to all of this - as well as the competing influences of the other parts of our lives. I don't sweat the eventual outcome - keep on trucking.

Regards - have a virtual Guiness stout on me :)

Mike

TheCurmudgeon
07-31-2013, 04:36 AM
It is not the the time factor that bothers me. It is that so many people viewed without comment. People, please say something! Even if it is that you think we are crazy. Clausewitz did not cross the Potomac so that you could sit on your ... behinds and not contribute your two cents worth. Samual Adams did not give up needlepoint and take up brewing so that you could site on your hands. It is just not the internet way. Please, for the love of whatever you feel is wholey, contribute!

Steve Blair
07-31-2013, 02:10 PM
Part of the challenge is getting people to look back. As cropped up in one of the linked blog posts, at least 2-3 generations of U.S. students and "leaders" have been conditioned to value law degrees, engineering, and the like above liberal arts (including history and geography). People like to forget that during the "good old days" of the Powell Doctrine we were scattering penny packets of troops all over the place in humanitarian assistance, advising, and the like. Like it or not, our military has historically been involved in small wars more than they have conventional conflicts. Even the fiction about Afghanistan being our "longest war" doesn't hold up to historical examination. That's absolutely no knock on the folks doing the heavy lifting there, but between 1865 and 1890 the Army was involved in this little thing called the Indian Wars. It may not look impressive now, but it absorbed about 75% of the Army's field strength (either in garrison duties or campaigning). It wasn't popular "at home" (when people even remembered there was fighting going on), there were locals seeking to make a profit of the government's presence, and West Point didn't even bother teaching tactics to match the environment (they were still busy fighting the Civil War).

I could go on, but the short version is that I agree with both Stans. This stuff is important, and if we don't keep up the chatter too many important lessons will slip away again and have to be relearned the hard way.

Madhu
07-31-2013, 05:30 PM
An an outsider to the military, I don't see much difference between some of supposed "retreat into conventional mode" and the "small wars are important" types.

I see a comfortable retreat into familiar arguments about familiar topics using overly represented and familiar examples by some proponents of the study of small wars--with no real reflection on what might have happened in the past decade or so and no opening up of the discussion on a theoretical or practical level.

Why the constant retreat to a few examples that seem to keep cropping up, the British in Malaya, Algeria, the Indian Wars, the Phillipines?

For the study of the Afghan campaign, a very careful full-rounded study of various South Asian insurgencies (outside the comfortable frameworks often presented on SA insurgencies here, same old same old, even the Indian General that wrote an article on COIN basically just repeated "hearts and minds") might be interesting.

I feel I spend too much time commenting already and would prefer to read academic papers or books on "small wars areas of interest" to me that don't seem to be covered much here. If I find interesting things, I will post--time permitting.

The moderators are awesome. The commenters and contributors are awesome.

David is absolutely terrific as a moderator.

But if the study of small wars is so important why are those interested always circling around the same few topics in the same way? I see nothing new, just the same old half-conceived notions of American history and practice regarding small wars.

It's a fascinating topic so where is the robust study and argumentation outside a little social science and some tactical discussion?

Best to all.

Stan
07-31-2013, 06:45 PM
Hey Madhu,
Would almost tend to agree with you. However, seems all the lessons learned from the past and our members' vast knowledge of the same has fallen on deaf ears.

We are not always meandering in the past, but sharing what we may feel has indeed been overlooked and deserves a relook or, we feel a need to share what our past revealed.

As duly noted, most of us come from military backgrounds and are in one form or another, still serving.

Not everything herein is Small Wars, but most everything has something to do with what may eventually occur and has often been overlooked by far more intelligent beings.

Regards, Stan

Steve Blair
07-31-2013, 07:02 PM
Why the constant retreat to a few examples that seem to keep cropping up, the British in Malaya, Algeria, the Indian Wars, the Phillipines?

Actually, both the Indian War and the Philippines are poorly-studied here. Brian Linn is one of the few scholars who actually has devoted a great deal of time and attention to the Philippines (at least the period from 1898 through 1910 or so), and his work is outstanding. The Indian Wars tend to be rather spotty, and often the focus is on a specific individual or battle rather than a longer-term view of the conflicts. There are a few outstanding scholars to be sure, but some areas remain very neglected and would certainly repay study. That doesn't mean that they are the "be all and end all" of small wars, but to assume that they've been mined out would be a mistake.

I agree that there is a lot of (misplaced) focus on areas like Malaya and Algeria. There's also little attention paid to things that have happened in both Central and South America.

slapout9
07-31-2013, 07:23 PM
OK, first, I have had several beers, so my ramblings may be slightly more incoherent then they usually are, but I feel I must contribute.

Beer Thinking is often Strategic Thinking:):):)

Bill Moore
08-01-2013, 07:44 AM
For the group at large, many have commented that here we go again, we're going to forget all the lessons learnt about Small Wars just like we did after Vietnam. What lessons do you feel are critical that we allegedly learned since 9/11 that we are at risk of losing?

This is an important question, because so far no one has really addressed it.

I'll challenge some comments I find to be illogical that are offered up by small wars advocates:

1. DOD pushed the "Rebalance to the Asia-Pacific" so they could focus on big wars and ignore small wars. This is wrong on all accounts. The rebalance to the Asia-Pacific was directed by our National Leadership (not DOD) for very sound strategic reasons. It just so happens that there are a number of potential scenarios in the region that could result in a state on state conflict of significant severity. DOD is focused on preventing those, if that fails we have to be ready to fight. The number of U.S. service members that would be killed in a conventional conflict would most likely be significantly higher than those killed in Small Wars. Bottom line we have to be ready for the unlikely, because the unlikely is more important to our national interests than the very often exaggerated threat from small wars to our interests. Second, there are more small wars in the PACOM area of responsibility than any other. There are over 20 separatist, insurgencies and terrorist movements in India along, and the number rapidly increases as you start moving east through Bangladesh, Nepal, Burma, Thailand, etc. The PACOM conducts FID in a number of countries (at different levels), so no one is exactly running away from Small Wars, but at the same time our leaders have an appreciation of the full spectrum of threats and what ones pose significant risk to us, and which ones simply counter some of our interest.

2. There are more small wars than larger state on state wars. That is very true, and lets hope that remains the case. However, in and of itself that is not a strong argument for the U.S. military to focus on Small Wars, because the vast majority of them we have little or nothing to do with. On the other hand, it is important to note that sometimes it is very much in our interests to engage in Small Wars for strategic reasons (not just because there are more of them).

3. We lost our Small Wars knowledge after Vietnam? What small wars skills did we gain during Vietnam that we lost? I admit many in the conventional army and Marines (especially LTCs and below in the 90s couldn't spell insurgency) may have ignored them, but Special Forces and some elements of general purpose forces were constantly engaged in small wars around the globe since the end of the Vietnam until 9/11. I came in during the late 70s and most of my career was focused on so called small wars and irregular warfare.

4. At the tactical and operational level what did we learn since 9/11 that we need to maintain that we're at risk of losing? I don't want to touch policy an and strategy, because we apparently didn't learn much in that regard. I can think of a few things, but want to hear your comments first.

The point of this effort is to move beyond the empty rhetoric of here we go again repeating history and tossing the baby out with the bath water and identify specific skills and knowledge we're at risk of losing. Once identified we can develop recommended ways to preserve these skills/knowledge.

I'm not convinced our military was as ate up as some of you seem to think. Our guys were doing back to back rotations in Bosnia and Kosovo prior to going into Afghanistan and Iraq, and that was certainly a messy small war by definition. 3d Special Forces Group (many of them) deployed to Afghanistan shortly after redeploying from Africa where they were supporting Peace Operations (small wars in this case), we had a long history of conducting counter narcotics missions globally (small wars sort of), and the list goes on. Go back to the 80s the list gets much more extensive. We seemed to do pretty well initially in Afghanistan with a few extraordinary men, local partners, and bombers. It got stupid when the policy got stupid. We did well in Iraq, to include the SF units working with Kurds who played a significant role in the decisive operations to oust Saddam. It was our politicians who denied we faced an insurgency that delayed the military's adaption to the threat. Not saying big Army was prepared for what came, but it wasn't as simple as some here seem to imply it was.

Bob's World
08-01-2013, 10:42 AM
We have learned how to do the wrong things better, but at the same time have somehow convinced ourselves that any strategic failures in the face of that tactical prowess are the fault of others - the host, the congress, the unwillingness to fully commit to a Clausewitzian or Galulaian solution either one, etc.


I for one hope that the primary lesson learned is that we still are not very good at this and that our "new" approaches are no better than our old ones at actually helping some place become more naturally stable; and that forced conditions of artificial stability by our hands are harder to create and less durable to sustain in the emerging environment. They also will remain hotbeds for follow-on insurgencies and recruiting grounds for acts of transnational terrorism.

In the words of Huey Lewis, we "need a new drug."

davidbfpo
08-01-2013, 05:41 PM
Bill M. asks a good question:
What lessons do you feel are critical that we allegedly learned since 9/11 that we are at risk of losing?

So I think a thread entitled 'Lost Lessons' may emerge, but then Madhu's post entitled 'I don't see any fresh thinking on Small Wars....' gives a contrary viewpoint. So the thread maybe called 'Lost Lessons & Fresh Thinking: a challenge for SWC'.

My reopening of this thread was four days ago and we have just hit a 1k views, with thirty one posts. That indicates to me an ample readership, but only a fraction comment.

slapout9
08-01-2013, 05:54 PM
In the late 40's and early 50's the Air Force came up with the concept of using an American Air Force and a small force of advosrs(CIA) but let the supporting country supply the needed Army. So I say the biggest lesson lost is that the Air Force cannot fight a Small War.....They can.

Bob's World
08-01-2013, 06:05 PM
In the late 40's and early 50's the Air Force came up with the concept of using an American Air Force and a small force of advosrs(CIA) but let the supporting country supply the needed Army. So I say the biggest lesson lost is that the Air Force cannot fight a Small War.....They can.

Back when the Air Force was made up of Army guys?? :)

Try to get the current Air Force to invest in the platforms necessary for that type of engagement today. Even AFSOC is invested in the wrong platforms the wrong personnel, and focused on the wrong missions to support small wars effectively.

But your point is a valid one.

davidbfpo
08-01-2013, 06:09 PM
In the late 40's and early 50's the Air Force came up with the concept of using an American Air Force and a small force of advisers (CIA) but let the supporting country supply the needed Army. So I say the biggest lesson lost is that the Air Force cannot fight a Small War.....They can.

Slap,

Was this concept proved though? If so please enlighten me, where?

Sounds like the Imperial British 'air policing' model used in the Middle East, notably in Iraq and less certain now on he North-west Frontier between the wars.

Fuchs
08-01-2013, 06:52 PM
Slap,

Was this concept proved though? If so please enlighten me, where?

Sounds like the Imperial British 'air policing' model used in the Middle East, notably in Iraq and less certain now on he North-west Frontier between the wars.


Afghanistan invasion 2001.

The concept's description does indeed sound conspicuously like the British aerial 'policing' over Iraq around 1930, though.


The idea of running a small war with the air force is q highly questionable one. Air force and even more so naval air operations are insanely expensive (especially if you don't want to have troops in the country to run and guard bases and supply convoys). Small wars' utility is rather small, so the means employed should have rather low variable costs.

Steve Blair
08-01-2013, 07:01 PM
Slap,

Was this concept proved though? If so please enlighten me, where?

Sounds like the Imperial British 'air policing' model used in the Middle East, notably in Iraq and less certain now on he North-west Frontier between the wars.

The concept was resurrected in no small part due to the budget wars playing out at the end of the Eisenhower administration and the transition to Kennedy and his "flexible response" ideas. In particular they were trying to fend off an emphasis on conventional conflict (and special operations) that might cut into their bomber funding (and the rise of helicopters within the Army drove their thinking as well, but that's a different story in some ways). Fuchs is correct that something superficially similar did take place in Afghanistan. As for testing at the time, the Air Force claimed that some small-scale deployments in the late 1950s and early 1960s "validated the concept," but the only battlefield testing I'm aware of would have taken place in Laos. And even then it wasn't the same thing.

And Bob, they didn't invest in the platforms to fight that kind of war back then, let alone now.

Dayuhan
08-01-2013, 11:32 PM
In the late 40's and early 50's the Air Force came up with the concept of using an American Air Force and a small force of advosrs(CIA) but let the supporting country supply the needed Army. So I say the biggest lesson lost is that the Air Force cannot fight a Small War.....They can.

Aren't we the supporting country?

That might work in some circumstances, if the country we're supporting has a functional army and the terrain is suitable. There will also be many circumstances in which it will not work, notably those in which the "country" we're supporting has no army, or if we've chosen to disband that army.

The US, it seems to me, has a uniquely persistent habit of entering what might be called "large small wars": conflicts that may be fought on a "small wars" model, but with a scope, duration, and expenditure that are anything but small. Creating a government, building a nation, installing a democracy are not small endeavors. If we adopt goals that require us to do these things, we are moving into a large small war, and that's troublesome territory. In a large small war attrition and political will become major factors, and public tolerance will be limited.

One overlooked lesson, if it was ever learned in the first place, would be to keep small wars small, and to resist the temptation to pursue objectives that push the scale out of hand.

Madhu
08-02-2013, 03:31 AM
Actually, both the Indian War and the Philippines are poorly-studied here. Brian Linn is one of the few scholars who actually has devoted a great deal of time and attention to the Philippines (at least the period from 1898 through 1910 or so), and his work is outstanding. The Indian Wars tend to be rather spotty, and often the focus is on a specific individual or battle rather than a longer-term view of the conflicts. There are a few outstanding scholars to be sure, but some areas remain very neglected and would certainly repay study. That doesn't mean that they are the "be all and end all" of small wars, but to assume that they've been mined out would be a mistake.

I agree that there is a lot of (misplaced) focus on areas like Malaya and Algeria. There's also little attention paid to things that have happened in both Central and South America.

Thanks for the comment too, Stan.

I tend to paint with too broad a brush in order to make a point. It's not a good habit. That's one reason I want to read more academic works. I need to break this habit. If I read more, I would have already known your point....

At least we all agree on one thing, we need more study and to keep the study alive, current and vibrant. I think one area that I have a kind of cultural disconnect from the military (or maybe the blogs I read?) is that I'm not really looking for quick "lessons learned" in the sense of "oh, look at what those guys did."

I have certain curiosities or questions about conflicts and want to read up on the questions because I think that current COIN doctrine oversimplifies the history of some campaigns used as a model. Gian Gentile in his book says that the models are too rigid and prevent a kind of grand improvisation (not minor tactical improvisations) or tailoring of a counterinsurgency campaign toward a specific conflict in all its peculiarities.

I have such a different narrative of colonial small wars in my head because of my ethnic background that sometimes it's like I'm from Venus and you all are from Mars.

Well, naturally that, given that I'm posting on a site about small wars....

Dayuhan
08-02-2013, 06:28 AM
Actually, both the Indian War and the Philippines are poorly-studied here. Brian Linn is one of the few scholars who actually has devoted a great deal of time and attention to the Philippines (at least the period from 1898 through 1910 or so), and his work is outstanding. The Indian Wars tend to be rather spotty, and often the focus is on a specific individual or battle rather than a longer-term view of the conflicts. There are a few outstanding scholars to be sure, but some areas remain very neglected and would certainly repay study. That doesn't mean that they are the "be all and end all" of small wars, but to assume that they've been mined out would be a mistake.

I agree that there is a lot of (misplaced) focus on areas like Malaya and Algeria. There's also little attention paid to things that have happened in both Central and South America.

Even where the history is reasonably well studied, attempts to deduce currently relevant lessons from that history often stray onto very thin ice. I sometimes get the feeling that writers decide which lesson they want history to teach and then go looking for some history to teach it.

I feel like this thread is wandering away from the immediate question of why the traffic here is growing so thin and what can be done to increase it, and toward questions more related to small wars generically.

Entropy
08-03-2013, 02:37 AM
Noticed this thread on my RSS feed for the SMJ blog and decided to take a look. I see that I haven't posted since January 1st.

My lack of participation boils down to two things:

1. Burn out, plain and simple. I can't even get past a paragraph or two in a news article on Afghanistan without turning the page.

2. Groundhog Day. I felt like I was making the same arguments over and over.

davidbfpo
08-03-2013, 11:10 AM
I have just created a new thread 'Lost Lessons & Fresh Thinking: a challenge for SWC', as a home for the discussion away from that on SWC being in the doldrums. Seventeen posts here have been copied over at:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=18662

Please comment here still on the issue Rob raised in 2007 and the renewed reading, with some posting!:)

Michael C
08-05-2013, 08:34 PM
I saw this in the SWJ twitter feed, and stopped into read the comments. The description of the SWC perfectly captures my experience. When I first discovered the SWJ as I launched my own blog, I joined the SWC and started reading and commenting. I quickly learned, though, that to assert any one point on an comment thread meant being prepared to defend it to the death, often from sentence by sentence rebuttals.

I then realized I was spending thousands of words to explain myself, and convince no one of anything. And while the SWC is in top of forums when it comes to the decency and respect of its members in their comments, its not perfect. Often ideas are dismissed and ridiculed, or people are told to learn their history or read a book. Moreover, even though the SWJ doesn't have the ideological bent, the SWC feels like it does. And I can't relate to that ideological bent. (This may have been more true 3 years ago too.)

But the main thing is time. I didn't have the time to read countless pages and write hundreds of words when I would get much more value out of writing on my own blog and simply reading academic papers.

davidbfpo
08-05-2013, 10:01 PM
Michael C.,

Thank you, you were one of those members who had faded away. To be fair you did ask SWC in January 2012, for their views in a thread 'Keeping SWJ/SWC Relevant?' and then I re-discovered a separate thread 'SWC 'quite disappointing'? from November 2011.

After a quick review each thread belongs here, although one has a number of humorous posts with pictures, including my own Italian photo:(.

graphei
08-14-2013, 02:30 AM
I've been lurking far too much and not posting enough. I can't help but say 'mea culpa' at that. This is a bit of a long and rambling post. My apologies. I've written 3 RFPS in 4 weeks and I am approaching 'deranged'.

A bit of where I'm coming from. My academic background is in Religious Studies- Islamic to be precise- and I've spent a lot of time pondering terrorism and broader themes of religious violence. Although my day job is currently a technical writer, I consider myself an independent scholar. During my entire undergraduate career I was groomed to be academic. I did make it through my Master's, but the funding in the humanities in the US is terrible. Not to mention the job market. Que sera sera.

A friend recently sent me "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency lessons from Malaya and Vietnam" by Nagl. I'm sure you're all very familiar with it. :) As I've been reading through it, I've been thinking a great deal about the lessons that we (I'm speaking as an American here) have learned over this past decade of conflict. While I know we have learned some, I get the sense those lessons have not quite sank in. I'm concerned that by the time they are formalized and published, their relevance will have faded significantly. Nagl discusses this snail's pace of doctrinal change in the US military system at length, and I've found it closely mirrored the academic life cycle of information 10-15 years ago. Books take a long time to write, edit, and publish. Back then, they'd have a decent shelf life. Now, books seem out of date by the time they hit the presses. Academia moves at about the same pace as military institutions do, but institutions seem to be embracing the digital revolution. Small Wars has a chance to be part of that revolution that pulls the doctrinal beast out of the Stone Ages.

Anyhoo, I've spent some time reading through the last six or so pages of comments and I've distilled what I think are a few key questions/concerns/points:

First, how do we make this little corner of the internet grow? What types of people do we want to attract to it?
I'm a member of the H-Net Middle East Politics mailing list and I had to provide verification of my academic credentials, what my research interests were, and what I was hoping to gain. This may be overkill for SWC, but it is something to consider. Perhaps everyone can post, but if you do have some kind of academic of military related credential, adding it to your title so the community is aware? Maybe the Editors can maintain a list of folks with appropriate credentials to do book/article reviews?

With that said, I do have ideas on how to get more folks from the humanities over here.
- Make the journal peer reviewed. Yes, this will require time but it can be put on the c.v. Academic service and all that jazz, but you're not going to be truly taken seriously without peer review.
- Perhaps soliciting entries from scholars on a theme, and then having op-ed pieces?
- Do we reach out to other organizations? MESA, AAR, and APSA come to mind off the top of my head.
- Do we attend conferences and panels?

A few other members have brought up concerns regarding viewpoints other than official' not being welcomed. Maybe this is a good time to have a broad discussion about this? And what better location than here! How do we, not only as a community internalize this, but affect change.
- Does the military really want to change or do they want to just check in the box?
- Is the anti-intellectual culture myth or reality?
- Now that the chapter of history that is OIF/OEF is closing, how do we retain these lessons we've learned and ensure they're carried forward?

SWC is a place to gather, discuss, and learn. Jcustis has been after me for awhile to do a podcast series on topics surrounding Islam and other religions. Maybe we can podcast different discussions or roundtables?

What about a reading club? We can have different groups/themes with moderators. Read a book/article- discuss it in a thread. While the 'Cycle of Bitching' is can be gratifying, it ultimately does nothing. Feed the grey matter monster, discuss it, and apply to your life- repeat.

These are just my suggestions and questions. I'm also willing to put my money where my mouth is and volunteer to get some of this rolling.

marct
08-14-2013, 03:01 AM
Hi Graphei,

As one of the humanities types to another (okay, I'm an Anthropologist with a background in Comparative Religion), I just wanted to comment on a couple of your points.



- Make the journal peer reviewed. Yes, this will require time but it can be put on the c.v. Academic service and all that jazz, but you're not going to be truly taken seriously without peer review.
- Perhaps soliciting entries from scholars on a theme, and then having op-ed pieces?
- Do we reach out to other organizations? MESA, AAR, and APSA come to mind off the top of my head.
- Do we attend conferences and panels?


SWJ is partly peer-reviewed. Basically, the peer-reviewing comes in when the editor can't quickly decide on the merit of an article using the SWJ protocols. These protocols took a number of years to develop, but the key ones are


is it timely?
does it sound reasonable?
does it (sort of) make sense? and
will it start a discussion?


I'd estimate that roughly half to three quarters of articles submitted are rejected out of hand, with most of the rest being published and only a few being peer-reviewed. The reasoning behind this was simple: we wanted to put the "peer" back in "peer review" :D. And, BTW, I'm one of the people who does what little peer reviewing we do.

On the theme / op-ed idea, we looked at that and, for a whole host of reasons, decided to adopt our own variant of it. It's there, but tricky to find as such.

As far as outreach to academic organizations or formal conference attendance, not really. There's very little reason for people to do that if we have other academic credentials. I'm not saying that it isn't done, just that it's not overt.


A few other members have brought up concerns regarding viewpoints other than official' not being welcomed. Maybe this is a good time to have a broad discussion about this? And what better location than here! How do we, not only as a community internalize this, but affect change.

Ya know, I'm definitely not part of the official narrative :cool: It makes it harder to interact in some ways but, really, it's fine once you establish your street cred. Honestly, this is just like joining any community; if you want to go against the generally accepted view, be prepared to defend yourself:wry:


- Does the military really want to change or do they want to just check in the box?
- Is the anti-intellectual culture myth or reality?
- Now that the chapter of history that is OIF/OEF is closing, how do we retain these lessons we've learned and ensure they're carried forward?

Many, MANY electrons could be killed answering those questions.... :wry:

I'm only going to tackle the "anti-intellectual" culture one, and leave the rest for others. In my experience, the military is not anti-intellectual, it is anti-non-practical. You can be a total eccentric with "insane" research interests but, if you can say "look at X, Y and Z" and show how it has applied meaning, most military folks will accept it.

OTOH, if you have an on-point expertise but tell a commander it's going to take 6 weeks to do a lit review and run focus groups before you can give them any input, you will be tossed aside like used toilet paper. Good commanders have a feel for the intellectuals, scholars and academics they work and network with. Good intellectuals need to develop a feel for working within the military cultures.


SWC is a place to gather, discuss, and learn. Jcustis has been after me for awhile to do a podcast series on topics surrounding Islam and other religions. Maybe we can podcast different discussions or roundtables?

Not a bad idea, but the tech may be a touch of a problem since we are dispersed around the world. Hey, if you're in upstate New York, you're closer to me (in Ottawa) than you are to Dave D. who's in Florida. Dispersed podcasts are possible, especially via G+ hangouts, but may not be feasible to do well.

All that said, please do start a series around Islam and religion in general! They can be a lot of fun but can also be a pain to put together well! BTW, I can say that because I'm in the process of putting together a serason of podcasts for War On The Rocks (http://warontherocks.com/).


What about a reading club? We can have different groups/themes with moderators. Read a book/article- discuss it in a thread. While the 'Cycle of Bitching' is can be gratifying, it ultimately does nothing. Feed the grey matter monster, discuss it, and apply to your life- repeat.

Again, we've got the dispersal problem. I do meet fairly often with some of the other SWC people in Ottawa, but.....

Cheers,

Marc

Bill Moore
08-14-2013, 06:56 AM
I've been lurking far too much and not posting enough. I can't help but say 'mea culpa' at that. This is a bit of a long and rambling post. My apologies. I've written 3 RFPS in 4 weeks and I am approaching 'deranged'.

A bit of where I'm coming from. My academic background is in Religious Studies- Islamic to be precise- and I've spent a lot of time pondering terrorism and broader themes of religious violence. Although my day job is currently a technical writer, I consider myself an independent scholar. During my entire undergraduate career I was groomed to be academic. I did make it through my Master's, but the funding in the humanities in the US is terrible. Not to mention the job market. Que sera sera.

A friend recently sent me "Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency lessons from Malaya and Vietnam" by Nagl. I'm sure you're all very familiar with it. :) As I've been reading through it, I've been thinking a great deal about the lessons that we (I'm speaking as an American here) have learned over this past decade of conflict. While I know we have learned some, I get the sense those lessons have not quite sank in. I'm concerned that by the time they are formalized and published, their relevance will have faded significantly. Nagl discusses this snail's pace of doctrinal change in the US military system at length, and I've found it closely mirrored the academic life cycle of information 10-15 years ago. Books take a long time to write, edit, and publish. Back then, they'd have a decent shelf life. Now, books seem out of date by the time they hit the presses. Academia moves at about the same pace as military institutions do, but institutions seem to be embracing the digital revolution. Small Wars has a chance to be part of that revolution that pulls the doctrinal beast out of the Stone Ages.

Anyhoo, I've spent some time reading through the last six or so pages of comments and I've distilled what I think are a few key questions/concerns/points:

First, how do we make this little corner of the internet grow? What types of people do we want to attract to it?
I'm a member of the H-Net Middle East Politics mailing list and I had to provide verification of my academic credentials, what my research interests were, and what I was hoping to gain. This may be overkill for SWC, but it is something to consider. Perhaps everyone can post, but if you do have some kind of academic of military related credential, adding it to your title so the community is aware? Maybe the Editors can maintain a list of folks with appropriate credentials to do book/article reviews?

With that said, I do have ideas on how to get more folks from the humanities over here.
- Make the journal peer reviewed. Yes, this will require time but it can be put on the c.v. Academic service and all that jazz, but you're not going to be truly taken seriously without peer review.
- Perhaps soliciting entries from scholars on a theme, and then having op-ed pieces?
- Do we reach out to other organizations? MESA, AAR, and APSA come to mind off the top of my head.
- Do we attend conferences and panels?

A few other members have brought up concerns regarding viewpoints other than official' not being welcomed. Maybe this is a good time to have a broad discussion about this? And what better location than here! How do we, not only as a community internalize this, but affect change.
- Does the military really want to change or do they want to just check in the box?
- Is the anti-intellectual culture myth or reality?
- Now that the chapter of history that is OIF/OEF is closing, how do we retain these lessons we've learned and ensure they're carried forward?

SWC is a place to gather, discuss, and learn. Jcustis has been after me for awhile to do a podcast series on topics surrounding Islam and other religions. Maybe we can podcast different discussions or roundtables?

What about a reading club? We can have different groups/themes with moderators. Read a book/article- discuss it in a thread. While the 'Cycle of Bitching' is can be gratifying, it ultimately does nothing. Feed the grey matter monster, discuss it, and apply to your life- repeat.

These are just my suggestions and questions. I'm also willing to put my money where my mouth is and volunteer to get some of this rolling.

If you have been studying and thinking about religion and terrorism for one I highly encourage you to post and share your thoughts. Some will probably disagree and push back against your assertions while others will support, that is the nature of discourse. You can't be overly thin skinned in this group, those who take disagreement with their opinions disappear quickly. What I have seen over the years now, is that people are modifying their opinions based on the ongoing discussions/debates. I think most of us generally get to a point where think maybe Bob or Dave (for example) actually are right, or at least partially right and we incorporate those ideas in our world view until our paradigms are once again shattered. We have members who have no military experience or academic credentials who provide valuable input. In many ways their views are the most useful because they're informed/shaped by military doctrine or academic group think.

One thing I'm relatively confident about is we don't have the right approach to successfully mitigate the strategic impact of Islamist based terrorism yet, so all ideas on the topic are welcomed.

TheCurmudgeon
08-14-2013, 11:35 AM
I've been lurking far too much and not posting enough. I can't help but say 'mea culpa' at that. This is a bit of a long and rambling post. My apologies. I've written 3 RFPS in 4 weeks and I am approaching 'deranged'.

But that is what is great about this place, anyone, from anywhere, can come in here and post ideas. SWJ has its regulars and after reading about ten of their posts you understand their slant. But in addition to them there are other people who are doctors, philosophers, or sociologists or just interested people who post. They see this world from a different perspective. Many won't agree. Some may be rude about it, but your ideas matter (unless they conflict with mine, then they are just CRAAAZZZYYY!)


With that said, I do have ideas on how to get more folks from the humanities over here.
- Make the journal peer reviewed. Yes, this will require time but it can be put on the c.v. Academic service and all that jazz, but you're not going to be truly taken seriously without peer review.
- Perhaps soliciting entries from scholars on a theme, and then having op-ed pieces?
- Do we reach out to other organizations? MESA, AAR, and APSA come to mind off the top of my head.
- Do we attend conferences and panels?


I can say from experience that SWJ does not take every paper they get, there is an editor who weeds out the less desirable (like me). I have also seen that peer reviewed journals tend to take on an editorial line - things they like and things they reject. They also tend to not take risks on ideas out of the mainstream. They don't like to risk their own credibility. SWJ takes anything relevant to the topic from tactical considerations to issues with doctrine to attacks on the way the Army works. It is that diversity that makes it useful, again, to those that spend their time in a relatively closed society.

I don't know if anyone here cares what I think. I care what I think. I care what YOU think (except when you disagree with me). So please, jump in.

Steve Blair
08-14-2013, 02:14 PM
One thing I can say with some confidence is that you will get robust discussion here. As a mod, I can say we as a group are pretty tolerant of discussion so long as people stick to the issues and avoid personal attacks (attack the issue, not the individual). Pet rocks can abound, as they do in any group of people with some similar interests, but on the whole it's a pretty good "give and take" environment.

graphei
08-14-2013, 04:55 PM
For the first time in about 6 weeks I don't have an RFP to write. I have a grande caramel macchiato circulating in my system and I had some chocolate. To paraphrase OneRepublic, "I can think again…"

First, I follow completely on the peer review and the reasons. It was definitely good to hear the reasoning behind it. Can I just say that it is outstanding anyone can publish if they have a point and can present it in a coherent manner? It is. I don't think people outside of academia really get how nasty peer-review and publishing can be. When people say you need thick skin in the 'Publish or Perish' world of academic press, what they really mean is you need is adamantine plated rhino skin. In short, bravo zulu to all of you.
Anyway, I wanted to clarify on the theme. A few of my favorite journals will put out a special edition once a year or so on a topic selected by the members from examining a particular event or concept to 'advancing' the field. Now that the focus is being moved to other parts of the region :cough: Egypt :cough:, maybe these types of topics or discussions will be more relevant? Granted, you masochists publish at break-neck speed, so it would require a fair bit of logistics, but it's just some food for thought. :)

If a copyeditor and/or another reviewer is needed, sign me up. Which reminds me, I need to renew my MESA membership...

I brought up the conference thing in part because back when I was a good little snowflake of a graduate student, I went to my first American Academy of Religion conference in 2007 out in San Diego. It was the 'big' one and not one of the smaller, regional meetings. The Council of Foreign Relations sponsored a roundtable on religious violence. It was one of the headline events and had a 3 hour block. I think the table had the floor for about an hour and then it was opened up to the audience for the next two. It was enlightening, but I couldn't help think no matter what was discussed, it wouldn't matter; these weren't the people that needed to be a part of it. Given the wide range of experiences we have here, this is closer to the audience I *wished* could hear it.

As far as the podcast/roundtable thing, I definitely know it's possible to get a quality cast done remotely with current open source technology. I've been doing a fair amount of research, and once I get this Intel DCO app out of my hair I can return to giving this my full attention. The main issue I've been running in is where to store and host the casts. Paying to have it hosted could cost me quite a bit. Rolling my own servers and maintaining them is just not in the cards right now. I know I'm not thinking of all the possible solutions, so I'm going to scoot out to my alma mater in September and discuss logistic with a professor of Media Studies. She has run her own radio show for years, and is well versed in digital production.

The book club thing is definitely possible and I participated in one as an undergrad. In fact, my prof and two others at different colleges team taught a course that way. It was not without challenges on their end, but it did work quite well! I remember the discussion board quite vividly. Every two weeks, a team of students- one from each college- would devise discussion points with the professor's blessings. From there, they'd moderate and contribute. At the end of the semester, we had to prepare and anthology of sorts. I suppose you could say I was at guinea pig at the bleeding edge of digital pedagogy back in 2004. Right now, I know one professor who runs a book discussion on Twitter of all places. While I'm not sold on having 140 characters, it really forces you to think about what your point is. Granted, it's not the same as sitting in the same room, but it opens up many different possibilities for interaction.

If either or both of these are interest to people, I will spearhead these and get them rolling.

I will say this: I'm always up for having a great discussion about the ways religion and violence intersect- especially with Islam. It makes me giddy that I found a place on the net where I can have these types of discussions. However, I'm feeling a bit hesitant to share right now. I just realized the other day that September will mark a decade of me studying Islam and religious violence. I started as an 18 year old girl, and while there are many people who are envious of my large head start, it isn't without drawbacks- many of which I'm attempting to navigate now.

What I'm trying to say- and failing so miserably at- is I feel you all deserve better than my musings of the past decade. Right now, I'm attempting to find ways to connect with resources, but I spend most of my energies looking for them instead of writing. I'm surrounded by colleges and universities, but none of them have the proper resources for me. Its a definite case of "Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink…" I remember being so excited when the COIN Field Manual was revised, then feeling underwhelmed by how religious insurgency was handled. I've wanted to write something about that for at least 3 years, but without resources it's not any good. I can't cite my experience.

And for those would say "Doctoral program- tally ho!", I would chuckle. Funding is non-existent and I have enough student loans as it is. If I knew I could get picked up at a think tank or research center when I was done, it would be another story, but for now it's not in the cards (sadly).

jmm99
08-14-2013, 07:58 PM
:D:):D

Most of the time, my posts on SWC deal with the "rules" and "reasons" for killing or capturing people. Their "literary genre" is more or less "book reviews", since I often link one or more books, articles or videos. Then I comment - briefly or verbosely.

There's an ulterior motive for doing what I do. It forces me to read the materials I cite; and therefore I learn. Whether others learn is their choice. Whether others elect a different presentation mode is also their choice. One thing I can say with complete assurance: SWC has no "party line" for "literary genres".

In basic mentality, I've been a practitioner and not an academic-scholar; though I was a law review editor for two years. So, I have a bit of experience there, having stayed at the Holiday Inn Express some 40+ years ago. Reduced to fundamentals, legal writing by practitioners and by academics-scholars is not that different: briefs vs articles. All are advocacy (albeit sometimes disguised, thickly or thinly); and should be well-sourced (personal opinions, generally, aren't worth much in the practitioners' world; probably, they are worth more in academia - "peer review", etc.). The formats are, however, quite different.

Here are two examples, as I would post them.

Michael C. Behenna v United States, Petition for a Writ of Certiorari (http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Behenna-Cert-Petition-FINAL.pdf) (SCOTUS, 2 Jan 2013):


Introduction

Petitioner, Army First Lieutenant Michael Behenna, was serving as a platoon leader in Iraq in 2008 when an insurgent attack with an improvised explosive device ripped through his patrol, killing two soldiers and three Iraqi civilians. Lieutenant Behenna interrogated a suspected insurgent linked to the deadly attack by intelligence reports identifying him as a member of the local “Al-Qa’ida in Iraq IED Cell.” Because Lieutenant Behenna conducted the interrogation “without authority” and trained his handgun on the suspected terrorist during the encounter, a bare majority of the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) ruled that Lieutenant Behenna “lost the right to act in self-defense as a matter of law.”
...
The AAF’s ruling is likely to be determinative of servicemembers’ right to self‐defense in combat zones unless this Court intervenes. ... The decision below should be reviewed, and reversed, now.

and Kevin Jon Heller, 'One Hell of a Killing Machine': Signature Strikes and International Law (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2169089) (to be published):



Abstract:

The vast majority of drone attacks conducted by the U.S. have been signature strikes – strikes that target “groups of men who bear certain signatures, or defining characteristics associated with terrorist activity, but whose identities aren’t known.” In 2010, for example, Reuters reported that of the 500 “militants” killed by drones between 2008 and 2010, only 8% were the kind “top-tier militant targets” or “mid-to-high-level organizers” whose identities could have been known prior to being killed. Similarly, in 2011, a U.S. official revealed that the U.S. had killed “twice as many ‘wanted terrorists’ in signature strikes than in personality strikes.”

Despite the U.S.’s intense reliance on signature strikes, scholars have paid almost no attention to their legality under international law. This article attempts to fill that lacuna. Section I explains why a signature strike must be justified under either international humanitarian law (IHL) or international human rights law (IHRL) even if the strike was a legitimate act of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. Section II explores the legality of signature strikes under IHL. It concludes that although some signature strikes clearly comply with the principle of distinction, others either violate that principle as a matter of law or require evidence concerning the target that the U.S. is unlikely to have prior to the attack. Section III then provides a similar analysis for IHRL, concluding that most of the signature strikes permitted by IHL – though certainly not all – would violate IHRL’s insistence that individuals cannot be arbitrarily deprived of their right to life.

We at SWC have been paying attention to signature strikes and other droney things for quite a while - and to the rules for killing or capturing HVTs. Not being a scholar, though, I can't pass judgment on Kevin's bolded comment as it applies to scholars. ;)

Thus, as I said before, different strokes for different folks.

Now, who wants to write up a nice little article arguing that Kevin's message is all wet.

Regards

Mike

selil
08-14-2013, 11:45 PM
Now, who wants to write up a nice little article arguing that Kevin's message is all wet.



Mike

Me... I'd use the process laid out in the HVT Process document they declassified along with the process found in there.

99.9% of the military has zero idea how targeting is really done and the rest are wrong :)

Dayuhan
08-15-2013, 12:56 AM
First, how do we make this little corner of the internet grow? What types of people do we want to attract to it?

That is the question. Answers are a little harder to come by, of course. In this case it's not only about attracting new people. There's also the question of re-attracting members that have become less active or inactive. Speaking only for myself, many, probably most, of the members whose contributions led me to come here are no longer around. Having them back would be wonderful; having new people here would be equally wonderful. How to accomplish that... I wish I knew.

A start might be to ascertain what led people to be active here in the first place, and what leads them to become less active.


I'm a member of the H-Net Middle East Politics mailing list and I had to provide verification of my academic credentials, what my research interests were, and what I was hoping to gain. This may be overkill for SWC, but it is something to consider. Perhaps everyone can post, but if you do have some kind of academic of military related credential, adding it to your title so the community is aware? Maybe the Editors can maintain a list of folks with appropriate credentials to do book/article reviews?

If academic or military credentials were required, I'd never have been let in the door. One of the most appealing factors about SWJ (to me), from the start, was the blend of field experience and academic input in a mutually respectful environment.


I do have ideas on how to get more folks from the humanities over here.

I'd have nothing against having more people from the humanities, but I'd also like to see more people from the "field" side, particularly voices from outside the US.


A few other members have brought up concerns regarding viewpoints other than official' not being welcomed. Maybe this is a good time to have a broad discussion about this?

I'm about as far outside the official box as it's possible to be, and I've never found this to be the case. Of course views, official or other, will be scrutinized and criticized, but that the nature of a forum. I have never felt any sense that views from outside the military or the politically orthodox camps were at all unwelcome. Certain types of behavior are unwelcome, but those constraints are easy enough to meet.


Does the military really want to change or do they want to just check in the box?

I wouldn't know about "the military" as an institution, but there certainly seem to be people within that institution that want to explore and discuss change. I'm sure they face substantial inertia, but that is the nature of institutions. From the perspective of the forum, there seems no shortage of people on the inside who are willing to discuss change.

I have noticed that many of those with proposals for change from within the .mil camp tend to gravitate toward the Journal, rather than the Council... perhaps because publication in the Journal fits on a resume? I think that unfortunate, as the Council seems to me a better venue for continuing discussion. I confess to having had occasional fantasies about tossing a few advocates of "Design" into a coliseum with Wilf Owen, Fuchs and a few others.


Is the anti-intellectual culture myth or reality?

I've actually been accused of anti-intellectualism a few times, on the Journal side. There may be an anti-intellectual culture, but there also seems to be a culture (possibly a minority subculture) that greatly esteems intellectual display... the aforementioned apostles of "Design" might again appear as exhibit A. My own perception is that this subculture at time prioritizes intellectual trappings over intellectual rigor, and the repeated (and strained) invocations of quantum physics and postmodernism occasionally make me want to toss... but maybe I really am anti-intellectual. I would say that while there may be an overall anti-intellectual atmosphere, there are enough intellectual subcultures to sustain discussion, and enough field folks to keep the intellectual discussion anchored and honest.


While the 'Cycle of Bitching' is can be gratifying, it ultimately does nothing.

This is true, and it brings us back to the chicken/egg question: does the discussion become cyclical because there are so few participants, or have the participants dropped away because the discussion became cyclical? Probably a bit of both, I'd say.


These are just my suggestions and questions. I'm also willing to put my money where my mouth is and volunteer to get some of this rolling.

As would I, given some practical ideas about what might be done. I'm still looking for some.

jmm99
08-15-2013, 01:35 AM
Either in a new thread (if you want), or in this thread, The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=13239), where signature strikes were first mentioned 1 Nov 2012, One Strike You're Out ?? (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=141988&postcount=131).

Judging from the zero response to that post's request:


Discuss, if you wish, the plusses and minuses of the matrix as written

- as well as

(1) the test you would use to include a factor (e.g., "more likely than not", "reasonable certainty", "high degree of confidence", etc., etc.);

(2) whether you would include or exclude each factor separately without considering the other factors (strict "must stand on its own" test); or would you aggregate all factors supported by some evidence, even where each such factor would not "stand on its own" ("conditional probability"); and

(3) whether other factors should be added to the matrix.

This doesn't require legalese.

either I was exhaustively correct in hypothecating the matrix - a doubtful proposition - or, no one was interested in the topic.

Since the 1st of this year, the thread has been almost exclusively devoted to drones and kill lists, with not very much viewer input.

So, yes; bring it on ! We clearly need some academic input. :):D:)

Regards

Mike

Bill Moore
08-15-2013, 07:57 AM
Posted by Dayuhan


I've actually been accused of anti-intellectualism a few times, on the Journal side. There may be an anti-intellectual culture, but there also seems to be a culture (possibly a minority subculture) that greatly esteems intellectual display... the aforementioned apostles of "Design" might again appear as exhibit A. My own perception is that this subculture at time prioritizes intellectual trappings over intellectual rigor, and the repeated (and strained) invocations of quantum physics and postmodernism occasionally make me want to toss... but maybe I really am anti-intellectual.

Oh I needed to read that, I feel so much better that it just isn't me. Taleb wrote something similar in his book, "The Black Swan." He wrote about a professor that droned on and on about post this and post that and in the end made no particular point, but apparently was quite impressed with himself. I loved the way you framed it, trappings without rigor. Until the design crowd moves past the trappings to the rigor, and in effect get to simplicity on the far side of complexity it will make little progress. They'll blame the institution but in particular case it isn't institutional bias, it is just simply that this dog doesn't hunt in its current form. I attended a week of design training where the instructors were actually able to get to the point quite effectively without masking the meaning in philosophical jargon. I always thought when I retired retired and marijuana is legal it might be fun (or not) to toke on a joint and ponder the philosophical underpinnings of post this and post that and how it applies to design theory. On the other hand, maybe just drinking a cold beer and talking with friends would be more fun?

graphei
08-19-2013, 01:47 AM
Ah, it's amazing what some sleep can do for a person.

With regard to the 'anti-intellectual' comment I made, it wasn't so much with regard to here, but more aimed at the larger military culture. I've been working my way through Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife and I've been spending a lot of time ponder learning 'cultures'. I definitely agree intellectual trappings versus intellectual rigor. A professor of mine had a different phrase for those who wanted the trappings without any of the rigor: intellectual masturbation. :D

I was attempting to hit at something similar with my questions regarding "official" view points. For those who are currently serving, is there any pressure for them to just quietly tow the line? The fantastic part about the Journal and Council is there is no 'official' line. Sometimes sacred cows make for great steaks.

For the proof of identification, I wouldn't want it used as a measuring stick for membership here. Bringing all of these different perspectives together is what makes this spot on the net great. However, if someone claims to have military experience or an advanced degree, perhaps parameters for voluntary verification can be discussed?

Now, I'm going to get the book club going. I need to do some more research, but look for a post by Wednesday.

Hippofeet
09-09-2013, 12:02 AM
I guess I feel like sort of an anti-intellectual, even though I just finished a massive info-intake about economics. I now know how to pronounce Bastiat.

I've just always have had bad mental associations with any (at least self proclaimed) intellectual. Some guy who's first car was a gifted Saab, went to a prep school, didn't have to work while he went to college for 9 years sitting around all tweedy in a red leather captain's chair reading something written by someone else on an identical life track, nodding in agreement and secretly selecting passages to plagiarize for some up coming (and doomed to obscurity) paper.

Also, my prose is fairly poor. I don't write as well, or as thoughtfully as some of you guys. Kinda embarrassing. So my go to position is not to post, even if I think I have something to add to the conversation. Lets not go into my need to google the spelling of the simplest words.

As far as credentials, I could send a DD-214, no prob, but an Honorable Discharge doesn't mean I'm not an idiot. And a Master's degree doesn't mean your not a jerk I don't want to talk to. (That's not directed at anyone here). I don't know how you would vet members. I guess I read posts, and over a period of time, come to trust or distrust the author, based on my own probably skewed feelings. I like Dayuhan, even though he says things I dont like. Him, I would trust.

Mostly, I just come on the site, skim around a bit, and leave. As far as getting more people on here, I guess SEO work, same as any other site. I like it here, I just turn off when it turns into a U.S. bashfest, no matter how deserved, on occasion. Small Wars? It's sort of heading towards one BIG small war, isn't it?