Another Loopy Anthropologist

[SteveMetz]

Actually, I'd love to see Professor McKenna get his shot here. He might be able to intellectually intimidate young people but our students would eat him alive and pick their teeth with his bones. Their first question might be, "Well, Professor McKenna, you're going to teach us about war. Do tell us about your experience with it. And reading Gramsci in a dangerous coffee shop doesn't count."

I think he's much safer staying in his academic alternative universe.

COUNTERPUNCH, May 28, 2008

Why I Want to Teach Anthropology at the Army War College (http://www.counterpunch.org/mckenna05282008.html)

...As an anthropologist, I want equal time in the War College. In the February 2008 edition of the Society for Applied Anthropology Newsletter, Captain Nathan K. Finney, an anthropologist with the Human Terrain System, called for informed discussion with his anthropology critics. "Let us open our minds as our anthropology professors instruct in Anth 101 and objectively discuss each other's ideas and concerns in order to find the best way forward together".

OK. I'd like to take Finney up on his offer and have access to the military and its soldiers directly. I have a ten-point curriculum.......

......A central purpose of anthropology is to help citizens recognize their ethnocentrism so that they can think more clearly about the world. So, if I had a chance to teach "Introduction to Anthropology" at the War College, here is how I might do it.

Day 1: Orientation: Discussion. Introductions. Overview of Course. Where are you from? How long have you been here? What's the best thing about the military? What's something you'd like to see changed? Film screening: In the Valley of Elah

Day 2: Smedley Butler Day. Review and discussion of War is a Racket Speech; View and discuss Eisenhower's farewell address. Read Uri Avnery's "The Military Option <http://counterpunch.com/avnery04292008.html> " in CounterPunch. Film screening and discussion: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

Day 3. NACIREMA: Discussion Where is this? What is capitalism? Discussion of Marx's labor theory of value. George Carlin on Football & Baseball. <http://www.baseball-almanac.com/humor7.shtml>

Day 4: Fieldtrip to US Veteran's administration hospital. Tour Guide: Wheelchair veteran Bobby Muller from Vietnam Veterans against the War <http://www.vvaw.org/>

Day 5 Iraq Veterans Against the War Day <http://ivaw.org/> ; How to file CO, information on war resisting. Film screening and discussion: Hearts and Minds

Day 6. How to keep from Dying: Are you safe? Discussion of April 17, 2008 RAND report which details 101,000 U.S. casualties a year. See "Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. Other Readings: Grand Theft Pentagon: How they made a Killing on the war on Terrorism.

Day 7: Rod Ridenhour and the My Lai Massacre. Discussion of war hero Ridenhour who was a whistleblower against this war crime. Discussion of Geneva Convention. Film screening: In the Year of the Pig

Day 8: Hitler and Totalitarianism: Can it happen here? Film screening: Seven Days in May

Day 9: Debate on Iraq War. Two teams of four students per team will debate the question "Is the War in Iraq a Just War?" Like college debate, students will be responsible for arguing both sides of the issue in two debates.

Day 10: The Deceptions of Military Recruiters. What did they tell you? Read "Lies Military Recruiters Tell <http://counterpunch.com/jacobs03052005.html> " by Ron Jacobs....

[selil]

What a putz. I'm not political scientist, anthropoligist, or sociolgist, but has not marxist, communist, neo-proletariat, classist literature pretty much been a circular argument of illogical objectivism?

[Tom Odom]

Steve,

There will always be assholes in this world who enjoy safety at someone else's expense. Dr. McKenna is just another one.

He would not be worthy of your students' time.

Tom

[SteveMetz]

What a putz. I'm not political scientist, anthropoligist, or sociolgist, but has not marxist, communist, neo-proletariat, classist literature pretty much been a circular argument of illogical objectivism?


I'll tell you, the propensity of many academics to pretend that their latte leftism was serious scholarship was one of the things that drove me away from mainstream academia. Well, that and the fact that no school would hire me.

[Entropy]

Wow. I am speachless.

[Rex Brynen]

I'll tell you, the propensity of many academics to pretend that their latte leftism was serious scholarship was one of the things that drove me away from mainstream academia. Well, that and the fact that no school would hire me.

I'm glad to see that you're rightly focusing on the latte leftists (splitters!), because we cappuccino leftists are the only true revolutionaries.

[ipopescu]

What a putz. I'm not political scientist, anthropoligist, or sociolgist, but has not marxist, communist, neo-proletariat, classist literature pretty much been a circular argument of illogical objectivism?

Yes, but that never stopped people from continuing to espouse that crap.
Even among academics, anthropologists (along with sociologists and English professors) have some of the looniest specimens out there...

[Tom Odom]

I'll tell you, the propensity of many academics to pretend that their latte leftism was serious scholarship was one of the things that drove me away from mainstream academia. Well, that and the fact that no school would hire me.

That's what happens when you wear a shoulder rig and a Glock to an interview...:D

[selil]

I'll tell you, the propensity of many academics to pretend that their latte leftism was serious scholarship was one of the things that drove me away from mainstream academia. Well, that and the fact that no school would hire me.

Being a technologist in academia is much better. We do real stuff. We drink coffee. When somebody pisses us off we publish their browser history to the web. Us technologists are very passive aggressive. We are the only academic discipline that everybody else tries to adopt as their own. Everybody wants us, but nobody respects us. Just remember I am reading your email.

[wm]

Yes, but that never stopped people from continuing to espouse that crap.
Even among academics, anthropologists (along with sociologists and English professors) have some of the looniest specimens out there... When I was an undergraduate, there was a fairly sizeable contingent among historians, too. I remember my "Western Civ since 1650" professor spending most of the semester on the Marxist critique of Western colonial oppression of Africa and SW Asia.

[Steve Blair]

I'm glad to see that you're rightly focusing on the latte leftists (splitters!), because we cappuccino leftists are the only true revolutionaries.

Real men drink coffee without additives.....:D

And on that note, WM, you are correct. There are a number of loony history types out there, concentrated in the Marxist and post-modernist areas along with some of the more fringe "special interest" focus history (which often strays into extended polemics with gender/biological overtones that with some word changes could have come from the Poison Dwarf himself).

[SteveMetz]

By the way, I really like the phrase "latte leftism" which I just invented and I intend to copyright it. Failing that, I am at least going to lick it so that no one else will want it.

[Gian P Gentile]

selil may be right, he may be a "putz." But I read the article, and as abrasive as it was it did bring up some points that merit serious discussion on this blog; e.g., the theoretical underpinnings to political power and military structure; the link between the military, the political, and academic departments.



gentile

[Ken White]

commenter rather than the comment. Mayhap beyond close. Your point may be germane but it could've been better stated, I think.

Disregard all before "huh" due to timely edit

[Tom Odom]

commenter rather than the comment. Mayhap beyond close. Your point may be germane but it could've been better stated, I think.

Agreed and I deleted the second half. Probably get to read about it on another blog...

[Steve Blair]

What a putz. I'm not political scientist, anthropoligist, or sociolgist, but has not marxist, communist, neo-proletariat, classist literature pretty much been a circular argument of illogical objectivism?

Of course...and that's the secret to its long-term appeal....:D

It would be interesting if the instructor went through a similar 10 point program designed to remove <his> ethnocentrism from the discussion, but somehow I don't think that will happen....

[SteveMetz]

selil may be right, he may be a "putz." But I read the article, and as abrasive as it was it did bring up some points that merit serious discussion on this blog; e.g., the theoretical underpinnings to political power and military structure; the link between the military, the political, and academic departments.



gentile

True. I guess it just set me off because of the arrogant tone--"I'd wave a few citations at the War College students and make them see the error of their ways." I also got a whiff of the notion that anyone who sees military power differently than Prof McKenna is either brainwashed or bought.

Brian McKenna

Brian McKenna was born and raised in Philadelphia, Pa., where he received a B.A. in communication arts and an M.A. in anthropology from Temple University. While in Philadelphia, he worked to shape public policy as a health analyst for the United Way's Community Services Planning Council and began a side career as a freelance journalist (City Paper, New York Guardian, University City Review). Before leaving Philadelphia for Michigan in 1991 to pursue his Ph.D. at MSU in medical anthropology, he taught political science and did a stint as development specialist for NPR's Fresh Air with Terry Gross. McKenna completed his Ph.D. in 1998 and has coordinated a groundbreaking study on Lansing-area environmental health for the Ingham County Health Department for the past three years. His study on our water will be published this summer (2001). He also taught a graduate class at MSU last fall titled, Anthropology, Health and the Environment.

[selil]

Interesting anecdote is that one of the Michigan universities sociology program is known as the Michigan Mafia. Home of Tilly. From what I've seen they are horribly leftist, and extremely antagonistic and virulently anti "breakdown theorist". As a group from what I've read they basically use academic assassination to get their point across as part of the "resource mobilization" theory. Not sure it is the same University but seems like the same tactics.

I have now exhausted the three brain cells I saved from my doctoral sociology course excursions last semester.. May all three RIP.

[SteveMetz]

Interesting anecdote is that one of the Michigan universities sociology program is known as the Michigan Mafia. Home of Tilly. From what I've seen they are horribly leftist, and extremely antagonistic and virulently anti "breakdown theorist". As a group from what I've read they basically use academic assassination to get their point across as part of the "resource mobilization" theory. Not sure it is the same University but seems like the same tactics.

I have now exhausted the three brain cells I saved from my doctoral sociology course excursions last semester.. May all three RIP.


I have no problem with ardent leftists. Heck some of my favorite fellow graduate students and professors considered themselves Trotskyites. I admire their passion and, coming from a blue collar Appalachian background, understand their anger. It just gets my dander up when someone suggests that anyone who thinks differently is misguided or nefarious, or both.

[selil]

It just gets my dander up when someone suggests that anyone who thinks differently is misguided or nefarious, or both.

That has been one of my issues too. One of my sociology professors was a break down theorist so we read several dozen papers looking at resource mobilization versus breakdown. The RM group were nasty, vindictive, and generally wrote with an evil zeal that was distasteful. The one sided nature of the nastiness was pretty obvious and not apparently selection bias.

Then I read a round robin slug fest between Anderson and LaQuant and whether "Code of the street" was an ethnography. It became apparent to me that on the other side of the science, way over there, they had a lot to say but most of it was pretty mean and useless to me. The ideas were intriguing. There was a massive amount of value to my research and opening new perspectives on how technology interacts to support some of my theoretical base. The packaging though could be pretty petty.

There is an Army Major hiding in the background of SWJ/C that took the one class with me. He has a LOT more perspective on the topic than I do since it was his core discipline. I though was left with a feeling that the social/anthropological sciences are pretty nasty to each other.

[SteveMetz]

I though was left with a feeling that the social/anthropological sciences are pretty nasty to each other.


Kissinger nailed it when he said, "University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." I've seen blood spilled over whose parking place was six steps closer to the building or whose office was ten square feet bigger.

[marct]

I really think you should invite him to teach a course there :D.

[marct]

Hi Gian,


But I read the article, and as abrasive as it was it did bring up some points that merit serious discussion on this blog; e.g., the theoretical underpinnings to political power and military structure; the link between the military, the political, and academic departments.

I think part of the problem is with the specific theoretical underpinnings he chose. One of my main problems with Marxian theology is that it all rests on St. Karl's flawed theory of the value of labour. At the same time, it has also focused so heavily on production side economics that it has, in many ways, forgotten distribution (at least in its classic forms). As for Gramsci, I far prefer Luigi Sturzo (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Sturzo-L.html) if we are talking about Italian Sociologists...

Gian, just out of interest, what would you use for such an examination?

Marc

[SteveMetz]

Hi Gian,



I think part of the problem is with the specific theoretical underpinnings he chose. One of my main problems with Marxian theology is that it all rests on St. Karl's flawed theory of the value of labour. At the same time, it has also focused so heavily on production side economics that it has, in many ways, forgotten distribution (at least in its classic forms). As for Gramsci, I far prefer Luigi Sturzo (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Sturzo-L.html) if we are talking about Italian Sociologists...

Gian, just out of interest, what would you use for such an examination?

Marc

I wasn't taking issue with that--I've read Prison Notebooks. It was an important and interesting work. What set me off was the implication that he's so smart that he'd throw a few intellectual bon mots at a room full of war college students and they'd see the errors of their way and recognize that they are tools of imperialism.

I guess this struck a nerve because I am intimately familiar with both military professionals and latte leftists, and therefore know which have better understanding of the reality of the world and have used that to develop a ethical code.

[marct]

Hi Steve,


I wasn't taking issue with that--I've read Prison Notebooks. It was an important and interesting work.

I've read them too and, honestly, didn't find them that interesting at all. A lot of the points he makes were made in earlier works.


What set me off was the implication that he's so smart that he'd throw a few intellectual bon mots at a room full of war college students and they'd see the errors of their way and recognize that they are tools of imperialism.

Oh, I agree with that! The arrogance he displays is, IMO, quite humourous in its scope - that's why I suggested you actually invite him :D (okay, I have a viscious sense of humour - just make sure you post the videos on YouTube!!!!).


I guess this struck a nerve because I am intimately familiar with both military professionals and latte leftists, and therefore know which have better understanding of the reality of the world and have used that to develop a ethical code.

Again, I don't disagree with you. I think it would be interesting to dig into the power relationships, as Gian noted, but to do it in a way that as far as possible tries to avoid the theological stridency of Marxism or any other theoretical model.

[J Wolfsberger]

Perhaps we could all help the good professor by investigating the Ygoloporhtna cult. :D

[Tom Odom]

Hi Steve,



I've read them too and, honestly, didn't find them that interesting at all. A lot of the points he makes were made in earlier works.



Oh, I agree with that! The arrogance he displays is, IMO, quite humourous in its scope - that's why I suggested you actually invite him :D (okay, I have a viscious sense of humour - just make sure you post the videos on YouTube!!!!).



Again, I don't disagree with you. I think it would be interesting to dig into the power relationships, as Gian noted, but to do it in a way that as far as possible tries to avoid the theological stridency of Marxism or any other theoretical model.

Ok given his background how about we ask him to serve on a PRT or HTT helping retore the marsh Arab's way of life after Saddam's draining of the area in post DS to punish the Shia; that would allow him to use his expertise OUTSIDE the US.

Then let him speak to the War College.

Tom

[SteveMetz]

Oh, I agree with that! The arrogance he displays is, IMO, quite humourous in its scope - that's why I suggested you actually invite him :D (okay, I have a viscious sense of humour - just make sure you post the videos on YouTube!!!!)

Several people have suggested that but I'm not inclined to waste the time of a buch of war college students just to teach the guy a lesson. I personally have never been in a war college class where I felt I was the smartest guy in the room (or a CGSC class for that matter). I suspect that would be a shocking revelation to him.

[Rex Brynen]

I suspect that would be a shocking revelation to him.

Sadly, I doubt it would register in the way that you would hope that it did--he would likely just presume that his day-with-your-class was insufficient to excavate through all the false consciousness...

[Multi-skilled Leader]

-------------
Edited by SWCAdmin
This is 80% drive-by rant.
We leave it in place for the 20% "are we being open-minded enough?" core.
Not as an example of good forum conduct.
-------------
Headline: Small Wars Council Dinosaurs Threatened by the “liberal” Anthropologist; Become Small Minds Journal for a Day.

You pitiful dinosaurs of the Small Wars Council:
You talk of developing effective, thinking, proficient small warriors to fight and win on the asymmetric battlefield of the 21st Century, yet feel threatened when a liberal anthropologist challenges your status quo?

You very same ‘agents of change’ in warfare thinking can’t look at one agent of change’s perspective on academic curriculum? You, mostly historians, want to believe you do not need a broad liberal education to force students at the War College to think outside the box? To challenge their reality? To realize that they may really be pawns to a perceived imperialism?

You PAWNS played into Dr. McKenna’s hand, for you are the very Military-Industrial-ACADEMIC complex desiring to protect your monopoly on the HEARTS & MINDS of our future strategic leaders.

Your testosterone-filled comments are more defense mechanisms than arguments. You are the very FUNDAMENTALIST that demand everything fall into YOUR box EXCEPT when you’re talking. When you’re talking, you can be creative and you can define creativity, by your rules.

I bet you participants of this particular thread are the very small minds that play DEVILS ADVOCATE and RED TEAM ideas in a room full of creative thinkers. You see it’s easy to be an intellect that shoots ideas down in lieu of offering your own broadening, challenging, reflective and original ideas.

HERE’S YOUR CHALLENGE:

Tell me how we create broadened strategic leaders ready for the challenges that our country will face in the next ten or twenty years?

You pitiful Dinosaurs of Professional Military Education. Where is Rob Thorton in this discussion thread to bail you out? He is on the sidelines because you have not contributed to the ongoing dialogue to advance training and education. Instead, you ran out of ideas and decided to have a little retiree target practice at the local rifle range with someone else’s ideas. Hey, this guy is not a COLD WAR, McCain Republican so let’s have a little target practice. You’ve made yourselves look like protectionist of the status quo.

Where is John Nagl, our Rhodes SWJ scholar, to bail you out? Oh, he isn’t here either. Funny. He would probably tell you to bring the brigade of anthropologists to shatter the thinking of our future strategic leaders of the Army.

Thank you for making Small Wars Journal the Small Minds Journal, in this thread at least, you 1000+ post scholars, for a Day.

[Old Eagle]

without the ad hominem attacks.

Please restate your thesis.

[Adam L]

Headline: Small Wars Council Dinosaurs Threatened by the “liberal” Anthropologist; Become Small Minds Journal for a Day.

You pitiful dinosaurs of the Small Wars Council:
You talk of developing effective, thinking, proficient small warriors to fight and win on the asymmetric battlefield of the 21st Century, yet feel threatened when a liberal anthropologist challenges your status quo?


No, the problem is that he was very rude. Many of his statements were simply inappropriate and had nothing to do with whatever legitimate points he may have had. Although I do wonder why so much time is being spent on such a trivial character.



You very same ‘agents of change’ in warfare thinking can’t look at one agent of change’s perspective on academic curriculum? You, mostly historians, want to believe you do not need a broad liberal education to force students at the War College to think outside the box? To challenge their reality? To realize that they may really be pawns to a perceived imperialism?


1. I can look at it. I'm just underwhelmed.

I believe in a broad liberal education. In fact I would endeavor to say that my view of a “broad liberal education” doesn't even exist any more. I am probably the greatest champion of broadening education. I also believe in a classical liberal education for that matter. My personal distaste for much of the work by anthropologist, psychologists, sociologists, etc. (also historians, literature professors, etc.) comes not from my disrespect for their field, rather them individually. I would go so far as to say that I am critical of the majority of academics (military and civilian.)



You PAWNS played into Dr. McKenna’s hand, for you are the very Military-Industrial-ACADEMIC complex desiring to protect your monopoly on the HEARTS & MINDS of our future strategic leaders.

Your testosterone-filled comments are more defense mechanisms than arguments. You are the very FUNDAMENTALIST that demand everything fall into YOUR box EXCEPT when you’re talking. When you’re talking, you can be creative and you can define creativity, by your rules.



You are reading too much into this, they are simply “testosterone-filled” and don't like being insulted. Look, I'd say most of us are guilty of thinking we are more creative than we are (some of us more than others), and Dr. McKenna is no different.




I bet you participants of this particular thread are the very small minds that play DEVILS ADVOCATE and RED TEAM ideas in a room full of creative thinkers. You see it’s easy to be an intellect that shoots ideas down in lieu of offering your own broadening, challenging, reflective and original ideas.



Look, I will acknowledge that it is generally easier to find flaws in ideas than creating them. This however is important. The people who are good at making “good” ideas are those that excel at deconstructing ideas and have some creativity. For example, the same skills are used when drafting a law that has to survive scrutiny or in fact scrutinizing it. Also, there are more “bad” ideas than “good” ideas, and in this particular case the “good” ideas must work both in theory and practice.




HERE’S YOUR CHALLENGE:

Tell me how we create broadened strategic leaders ready for the challenges that our country will face in the next ten or twenty years?




Broader history education – From the start, BA's are too focused, too early. This might have worked when students came out of high school with a strong overview of history, but it has been a long time since that happened.
More cognitive psych in the survey courses less clinical. Psychology has been made into a joke the last 20-30-40 years. Also, everyone should have to study some Neuroscience/Neuroanatomy. (good for the understanding of psychology, human behavior and chemical/biological weapons)
Classical Liberal Arts Education – would give greater depth to almost everything being studied. As well as give officers a solid grounding in oratory and statesmanship. (two things we are missing these days)
Less boxes to check off, less SAT scores - Half the schools in this country are saying that interviews are optional and won't effect the admissions process. I doubt there is a single school in this country that would let Einstein study there even if he had shown up at the deans office with general relativity. That is unless CNN gave him coverage.




You pitiful Dinosaurs of Professional Military Education. Where is Rob Thorton in this discussion thread to bail you out? He is on the sidelines because you have not contributed to the ongoing dialogue to advance training and education. Instead, you ran out of ideas and decided to have a little retiree target practice at the local rifle range with someone else’s ideas. Hey, this guy is not a COLD WAR, McCain Republican so let’s have a little target practice. You’ve made yourselves look like protectionist of the status quo.



Hey, you don't have to be a McCain Republican to dislike this schmuck. Also, considering the amount of ordinance guys on the website McKenna is lucky they're using rifles.




Where is John Nagl, our Rhodes SWJ scholar, to bail you out? Oh, he isn’t here either. Funny. He would probably tell you to bring the brigade of anthropologists to shatter the thinking of our future strategic leaders of the Army.



Yes, he might. I wouldn't agree with him though.


If Mr. McKenna's curriculum has anything to do with anthropology, please let me know. As far as I could tell it was jut plain old leftist ideology. It also happens to be pseudo-intellectual garbage of the type that no person should have to suffer through.


“Debate on Iraq War. Two teams of four students per team will debate the question "Is the War in Iraq a Just War?" Like college debate, students will be responsible for arguing both sides of the issue in two debates.”


This is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether this is a “just war.” They are professionals and they must perform their duty.


“The Deceptions of Military Recruiters. What did they tell you? Read "Lies Military Recruiters Tell”


Hopefully our officers want to be in the military! Also, it is irrelevant.


“A central purpose of anthropology is to help citizens recognize their ethnocentrism so that they can think more clearly about the world.”


Really? Hmmm... Things certainly have changed. I can remember when anthropology was a serious academic endeavor.


Adam L

[SWCAdmin]

There was a bit of a flurry, this thread was temporarily closed with some posts deleted. In the light of a fine Sat AM, here's the current status:

1) Pretty unambiguous that Multi-skilled leader was way more arrogant and offensive in his tirade than he needed to be. The little red card is an infraction. He needs to add, to his multiple skills, tact and the ability to more effectively influence people.

2) At the core of his message (we think, in hindsight), beyond the petty attacks, he echoes the concerns we have as operators of this forum over getting to be too much of an old boys club, set in our norms, etc. This forum only works if it is open, tolerant to new messages and new messengers.

3) We have undone some of the deletes, and neatened things up to continue the discussion. With that done, this can of worms is re-opened.

It is hard enough to hear criticism and grow from it. It's a lot harder to not close ranks when then criticism is couched in a ridiculously petty assault, in particular when blessed with the God-like powers of forum administrators to make things go away. We do not wish to be parochial or self-serving.

Please continue (or, some cases, start) to discuss the issues in a civil, professional, and open manner. Including the issue of whether we're in a rut. All is on the table. Just do it more multi-skillfully.

----
SWJED & SWCADMIN
(Dave & Bill)

[marct]

Referring to Dr. McKenna as a "liberal" is a drastic dis-service to liberals. Let's look at his "Introduction to Anthropology" course (so-called)


So, if I had a chance to teach "Introduction to Anthropology" at the War College, here is how I might do it.

Day 1: Orientation: Discussion. Introductions. Overview of Course. Where are you from? How long have you been here? What's the best thing about the military? What's something you'd like to see changed? Film screening: In the Valley of Elah

Day 2: Smedley Butler Day. Review and discussion of War is a Racket Speech; View and discuss Eisenhower's farewell address. Read Uri Avnery's "The Military Option" in CounterPunch. Film screening and discussion: Ghosts of Abu Ghraib

Day 3. NACIREMA: Discussion Where is this? What is capitalism? Discussion of Marx's labor theory of value. George Carlin on Football & Baseball.

Day 4: Fieldtrip to US Veteran's administration hospital. Tour Guide: Wheelchair veteran Bobby Muller from Vietnam Veterans against the War

Day 5 Iraq Veterans Against the War Day; How to file CO, information on war resisting. Film screening and discussion: Hearts and Minds

Day 6. How to keep from Dying: Are you safe? Discussion of April 17, 2008 RAND report which details 101,000 U.S. casualties a year. See "Invisible Wounds of War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery. Other Readings: Grand Theft Pentagon: How they made a Killing on the war on Terrorism.

Day 7: Rod Ridenhour and the My Lai Massacre. Discussion of war hero Ridenhour who was a whistleblower against this war crime. Discussion of Geneva Convention. Film screening: In the Year of the Pig

Day 8: Hitler and Totalitarianism: Can it happen here? Film screening: Seven Days in May

Day 9: Debate on Iraq War. Two teams of four students per team will debate the question "Is the War in Iraq a Just War?" Like college debate, students will be responsible for arguing both sides of the issue in two debates.

Day 10: The Deceptions of Military Recruiters. What did they tell you? Read "Lies Military Recruiters Tell" by Ron Jacobs.

Nowhere in all of this do I see any teaching of any of the core concepts of Anthropology: Culture, Kinship, Social Organization, Power, Religion and Ideology, etc. This is not an Introduction to Anthropology but, rather, an Introduction to Anti-military Ideology.

Furthermore, how does he view the role of military education?




This is "education"?!?

[quote=Multi-skilled Leader;48581]Tell me how we create broadened strategic leaders ready for the challenges that our country will face in the next ten or twenty years?

The first thing is to define erms such that they have some type of meaning rather than meaning what people will them to on a use by use basis a la Humpty-Dumpty. So, let's start with a few terms then...


Data: sensory input, either "real" (i.e. individually observed), "inferred" (based on previous associations) or "assumed" (usually via a theoretical construct.

Knowledge: data organized according to some form of schema

Knowledge base: a collection of organized data held by internally by an individual in their memories and externally by various storage devices (e.g. books, journals, blogs, databases, etc.).

Learning: the action of individuals who take data and construct interpretations of them and, as a result, construct internal models of data processing.

Education: a system of teaching and learning that concentrates on students acquiring ways of thinking and ways of judging data that are presented to them. At the core of an education system is a grounding in Epistemology.
Now, let's just pull apart some of the assumptions in your question. First, why do you assume that people like this can be "created"? Humans are not robots, so any attempt at creating a PME system that treats them as if they were is doomed to failure. You don't "create" broad strategic leaders, you help them emerge.

What is a "strategic leader"? This is not a "red team" question but, rather, a Socratic question. The very concept of a "leader" needs to be pulled apart which, BTW, is one of the reasons I highly approve of the choices David Price makes in his readings - it exposes the underlying social-structural assumptions behind terms like "leader". So, let's pull it apart a bit.

What is a "leader"? In one set of social (power) relations, a "leader" is the person who has the best knowledge of a given task or set of tasks. In Anthropology, we tend to call social settings where this type of leadership is used as "situational leadership" (in business, the organizational type is called a Matrix Organization). It also correlates with social systems organized around reciprocity.

In another set of social relations, a "leader" is a "leader" by virtue of holding a particular office (this is what Weber called a bureaucratic organization). A minimum level of skills / competency is assumed to be held by the individual by virtue of the requirements of obtaining that office. However, nothing more than a minimum level of skills can be assumed, and that minimum level may not be enough to actually perform the jobs they are required to perform. This is the current organizational type that dominates most military organizations, and is the type assumed by the way you structured your question.

There are other types of leaders and other types of social relations, but I'm not teaching an Introduction to Anthropology class right now (although I have taught them).

Now, let's look at the adjective you used: "strategic". In what sense? Are you talking purely military strategy? If so, then you had better hope that the US fights another peer2peer war, because that is the only situation that allows for "pure" military strategy. If not, then "strategy" must include politics, economics, military action, communications theory, and a whole host of other areas. If that is the case, you certainly do not produce such a strategic leader in a 4 year degree program - it will take a lot more years and a lot more experience than that! And, more importantly, you certainly will not produce such a person in a 10 day propaganda fest!

[Surferbeetle]

Webster defines a militant as:

Pronunciation: \-tənt\
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : engaged in warfare or combat : fighting
2 : aggressively active (as in a cause) : combative <militant conservationists> <a militant attitude>


HERE’S YOUR CHALLENGE:

Tell me how we create broadened strategic leaders ready for the challenges that our country will face in the next ten or twenty years?

Taking this question at its face value my response is:

1) Increase the emphasis and resources allocated across the military to education & training of personnel while decreasing resources spent upon stove-piped weapons and command and control systems. Focus remaining resources for weapons and command and control systems on standardized COTS/Joint systems.
a. All commissioned officers need to be brought in with a bachelors degree at an accredited school that they can gain admission to (for the most part this happens now however there are exceptions). All captains/O-3’s are sent for a masters degree at an accredited school that they can gain admission to (GI-bill is adapted for this requirement).
b. All warrant officers are sent for a bachelors degree at W2 at an accredited school that they can gain admission to(GI-bill is adapted for this requirement).
c. All NCO’s are sent for an associates degree at SGT/E-5 at an accredited school that they can gain admission to (GI-bill is adapted for this requirement). All E7/SFC’s are sent for a bachelors degree at W2 at an accredited school that they can gain admission to(GI-bill is adapted for this requirement).
d. Require all service members to learn another language and remain proficient in order to stay in (aka a semiannual ‘PT’/height/weight requirement).
e. Require semiannual CTC rotations for all units.
f. Increase worldwide ‘humanitarian/non kinetic’ prevention missions and require all military members to participate annually.
g. All service members (irrespective of service and Active, Reserve, or Guard status) including the lame, listless, and lazy go to the war zone and work daily outside the wire.
h. Decrease the 3-4 year cycle of moving families to a 10 year cycle.
2) For USG civilians increase the emphasis and resources allocated to education & training of personnel while decreasing resources spent upon stove-piped command and control systems. Focus remaining resources on command and control systems which are standardized COTS/Joint systems.
a. All USG civilian agencies will have a deployment team and those assigned to these teams will deploy annually on ‘humanitarian/non kinetic’ prevention missions (unity of command lessons need to be learned).
b. Require semiannual CTC rotations for all USG civilian deployment units.
c. Drastically reduce the number of political appointments and instead work from a merit/qualifications based standpoint...
d. Telecommuting for knowledge based skill sets is increased in order to build capabilities and systems for decentralized operations.

[Multi-skilled Leader]

Forum Members,
Upfront, I have reflected on my comments and tried to understand why I laced my comments with such sharp attacks and anger. I am sorry.

I believe my father, a professor emeritus in Engineering, trained me at the kitchen table to try to understand the goodness of others thoughts.

I did not intend a "cheap shot" to the forum but was offended at how you where beating the geek up on the playground. I did intend for some to get a "cold shower" and get off their high horse.

I consider you all more mentors than peers. Thank you for the coaching and patience.

I have learned alot today. And it was all free. Heck is anyone shooting at us?

Sincerely,
In need of tact and persuasion, I am
Multi-skilled Leader

Iron sharpens iron--Look at the quality of the posts now!
Again, thank you for your mentoring, coaching and teaching.

[SteveMetz]

Forum Members,
Upfront, I have reflected on my comments and tried to understand why I laced my comments with such sharp attacks and anger. I am sorry.

I believe my father, a professor emeritus in Engineering, trained me at the kitchen table to try to understand the goodness of others thoughts.

I did not intend a "cheap shot" to the forum but was offended at how you where beating the geek up on the playground. I did intend for some to get a "cold shower" and get off their high horse.

I consider you all more mentors than peers. Thank you for the coaching and patience.

I have learned alot today. And it was all free. Heck is anyone shooting at us?

Sincerely,
In need of tact and persuasion, I am
Multi-skilled Leader

Iron sharpens iron--Look at the quality of the posts now!
Again, thank you for your mentoring, coaching and teaching.


As a life long geek, I believe that some of us sometime need beating up.

I probably shouldn't have started this whole thing. It is absolutely true that senior military leaders need to understand a range of viewpoints. Heck, I worked hard (but unsuccessfully) to bring Daniel Ortega in as a guest speaker when I taught at the Air War College.

I, unfortunately, got spun up because based on what I saw, I didn't believe McKenna truly had anything to offer war college students, but yet seemed to think that he could intimidate or wow them with what he had. The visit a hospital is a case in point. I'll bet you that 90% of war college students have visited wounded warriors. It would surprise me if the professor had.

So I don't think anyone here was defending a particular ideology, but rather taking issue with ignorance.

[Watcher In The Middle]

...and here's why (which contributes to a point made by Tom Odom):

Ok given his background how about we ask him to serve on a PRT or HTT helping retore the marsh Arab's way of life after Saddam's draining of the area in post DS to punish the Shia; that would allow him to use his expertise OUTSIDE the US.

Happen to have a very extensive exposure to "Environmental Health" as it is conducted by local Health Departments throughout the US. "Environmental Health" normally covers all sorts of Health Department functions such as Food Establishment inspections (i.e., restaurants, schools, churches, ext.), Day Care, tanning facilities, radon, all sorts of solid waste facilities regulation, private (potable) well, and private sewage (septic), etc., etc. And that's only a taste of the issues at play here.

Knowing what I know about the state of enforcement and issues (environmental health; well and septic issues) up in the State of Michigan (and to be fair, not just limited to Michigan), I'd say Dr. McKenna talks big, but nothing major has yet been accomplished politically up in Michigan over environmental "water issues". In fact, "Dead On Arrival" comes to mind.

It's probably fairly unlikely that anything Dr. McKenna might bring to the table regarding issues the marsh Arabs might be facing would be useful. There would have to be practical solutions, and based upon what the local political outcome (actually, "Blowback" might be a better term) was from the study/proposals from the Inghan County plan over regulating/inspecting private wells and septic fields, well it's unlikely there would be much in the way of anything useful he could contribute.

We're probably better off with Dr. McKenna teaching than we would be with him out in the field actually trying to accomplish anything. When you're actually working out in the field, you've got to make the effort to keep up with the latest in technology and procedures, because things are always changing.

[Rob Thornton]

Having had only a brief few months and change up at Carlisle Barracks for BSAP (the Army 59s go there for their intro into the field of plans and policy) I was very impressed with the range and rigor of the place. While I attribute a great deal of its standard to its faculty (many of which came and talked to us as part of our program), what really make it superb is the quality of folks in attendance.

Going through Dr. McKenna's list, I think he'd be surprised with the diversity of thought and opinion on the topics he puts forward. The student body (as with most of those who serve) have probably seen the very best, and the very worst of human life in the last 7 years. The sort of things they've seen and endured, and watched others endure naturally lead you to ask the type of questions that have meaning beyond what any book or film can possibly capture.

In my brief time there we were fortunate enough to attend four quality speakers (one was on VTC) in the lecture series. The student body asked these guests some really hard, and thoughtful questions. While respectful, the questions were of a nature as to question some of the most basic and closely held beliefs we profess to. They certainly were of a caliber beyond what I've heard from any university lecture/speaker program, or from any media interview. These were the questions of men and women that had come face to face with their own mortality and those of whom they are given responsibility over. You don't get that many other places either.

Our learning institutions are better and more broad then they may have ever been I think. Although good by any standard during peace time, the wars have caused us to hold everything up to scrutiny. It has nothing to do with seeking out a job that might open its doors based on where a degree was stamped, it has everything to do with better understanding the challenges that we are charged to carry out.

I think the critical challenge in producing strategic leaders is getting them to understand the requirement for it. War has certainly shaped our understanding of that requirement, and from what I've seen our institutions and faculty are living up to their end.

Best, Rob

[Adam L]

a. All commissioned officers need to be brought in with a bachelors degree at an accredited school that they can gain admission to (for the most part this happens now however there are exceptions). All captains/O-3’s are sent for a masters degree at an accredited school that they can gain admission to (GI-bill is adapted for this requirement).



I have to disagree with you on this. Bachelors degrees used to mean someone was educated (most of the time.) Now most bachelors degrees are only an assurance that they NOW know what they should have known coming out of high school. (Most of the time.) I am not saying that all people are like this, just too many. The work I have seen out of schools that are touted as being among the finest institutions in the country is not what it should be. (This is a very generous way of putting it.) What I am trying to say is that I don't care if someone has a BA, MA or PHD. I care about the quality of their work, their capabilities and knowledge. The masters should have to in some way be relevant to their duties. If you are proposing this as a benefit, that might be a good idea. No matter the concentration, I have been very underwhelmed by many of the MA and PHD students I have run into. (Again I am not saying all of them.) I have read doctoral thesis of students out of some very good schools, and they are not what they should be. Sorry if I am offending anyone with this, but I challenge anyone to say that education has not gone down over the last 50 years.


b. All warrant officers are sent for a bachelors degree at W2 at an accredited school that they can gain admission to(GI-bill is adapted for this requirement).


Again, is this a benefit or a requirement. Although I see it as a good idea for many, I really question whether it would be better to provide the education in house. It would not be hard to out-do even the most prestigious universities these days.




c. All NCO’s are sent for an associates degree at SGT/E-5 at an accredited school that they can gain admission to (GI-bill is adapted for this requirement). All E7/SFC’s are sent for a bachelors degree at W2 at an accredited school that they can gain admission to(GI-bill is adapted for this requirement).



I don't see the point in this. Most associates degrees (excluding those in technical areas) in my opinion are not worth much. Unless there is a specific educational objective in any of these (see above) I really believe that exposure to broad array of subject matter must be the goal. (A liberal arts education as it should be.) If this is the case, wouldn't it be more reasonable just to encourage them to gather a certain amount of credits? This would be of far greater benefit. If they are academically capable let them matriculate at a good school. Is the reason you are mentioning associate degrees that they are a shorter term of study that is less expensive and has fewer credits? If this is so, the military should make arrangements with state schools so that they can simply accumulate credit.



d. Require all service members to learn another language and remain proficient in order to stay in (aka a semiannual ‘PT’/height/weight requirement).


I absolutely agree with this. I've been meaning to get around to writing something about this but that never happened. On top of this I would suggest that the DoD create a program where language programs in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, etc. (the more exotic but useful languages these days) are subsidized in public schools.

If there is enough planning it might be possible to make it so every platoon, or maybe even squad, had someone capable of speaking one of maybe a half dozen or so languages that we feel we are likely to run into.


I should add to my comments above that I am not saying that I do not believe more education would not be useful, rather I question whether there are more useful forms of education/training.


Adam L

[120mm]

[
Your testosterone-filled comments are more defense mechanisms than arguments. You are the very FUNDAMENTALIST that demand everything fall into YOUR box EXCEPT when you’re talking. When you’re talking, you can be creative and you can define creativity, by your rules.

I bet you participants of this particular thread are the very small minds that play DEVILS ADVOCATE and RED TEAM ideas in a room full of creative thinkers. You see it’s easy to be an intellect that shoots ideas down in lieu of offering your own broadening, challenging, reflective and original ideas.


It's entirely possible to be "testosterone-filled" and still be an operational genius. Is there a fear of testosterone? (Testosterone-phobia?) While academia calls for rigor in examining "some" ideas, I find there is little place in it for those who "get it" on a visceral level, but are less able to process it intellectually.

At the end of the day, those are the guys you are going to have to ask to execute.

This post has inspired me to share that I am no longer even the slightest bit interested in pursuing further academic goals, except to improve my writing ability at work. I thank many of the folks here for helping me discover that.

[120mm]

Having had only a brief few months and change up at Carlisle Barracks for BSAP (the Army 59s go there for their intro into the field of plans and policy) I was very impressed with the range and rigor of the place. While I attribute a great deal of its standard to its faculty (many of which came and talked to us as part of our program), what really make it superb is the quality of folks in attendance.

Going through Dr. McKenna's list, I think he'd be surprised with the diversity of thought and opinion on the topics he puts forward. The student body (as with most of those who serve) have probably seen the very best, and the very worst of human life in the last 7 years. The sort of things they've seen and endured, and watched others endure naturally lead you to ask the type of questions that have meaning beyond what any book or film can possibly capture.

In my brief time there we were fortunate enough to attend four quality speakers (one was on VTC) in the lecture series. The student body asked these guests some really hard, and thoughtful questions. While respectful, the questions were of a nature as to question some of the most basic and closely held beliefs we profess to. They certainly were of a caliber beyond what I've heard from any university lecture/speaker program, or from any media interview. These were the questions of men and women that had come face to face with their own mortality and those of whom they are given responsibility over. You don't get that many other places either.

Our learning institutions are better and more broad then they may have ever been I think. Although good by any standard during peace time, the wars have caused us to hold everything up to scrutiny. It has nothing to do with seeking out a job that might open its doors based on where a degree was stamped, it has everything to do with better understanding the challenges that we are charged to carry out.

I think the critical challenge in producing strategic leaders is getting them to understand the requirement for it. War has certainly shaped our understanding of that requirement, and from what I've seen our institutions and faculty are living up to their end.

Best, Rob

Ummm... Weren't you supposed to stay on the sidelines????;):rolleyes:;)

[marct]

Hi 120,


This post has inspired me to share that I am no longer even the slightest bit interested in pursuing further academic goals, except to improve my writing ability at work. I thank many of the folks here for helping me discover that.

Okay, I noticed you phrased this as "pursuing further academic goals" (emphasis added). I trust that you certainly aren't giving up further scholarly goals :D!

[Rob Thornton]

Ummm... Weren't you supposed to stay on the sidelines????

To be honest I've had a pretty full plate at work and home lately - same with most everyone I suppose. When I originally saw the thread title it slipped by me. When I saw my name had come up I felt a bit obligated. Truth be told, the caliber of folks participating on the SWC is pretty amazing these days. Its coming up on my 2 year mark of participation, and there are a number of folks that have come on over the last year who bring good discussion to the council every time they sit down to the keyboard. A thread takes off pretty quick, and if you don't spend the time going back and reading some of the original posts on it before you post you might come up short. One of the things I've always liked here is that members will challenge you here - they will call you to task. The manner they do it depends on the what the response calls for, but regardless you'll get called on it.

Best, Rob

[Steve Blair]

Hi 120,



Okay, I noticed you phrased this as "pursuing further academic goals" (emphasis added). I trust that you certainly aren't giving up further scholarly goals :D!

I, for one, have never let academia get in the way of my scholarly studies...:D

Back to Adam's comment about broadening history education...my concern right now is that it is in fact TOO broad. By that I mean people are forced to examine too many sub-fields without being prepared with the basic tools. By that I mean a good course at the freshman level in both historiography AND research and writing skills. As it stands at most universities, students don't even really get a chance to learn these basic skills until after they've suffered through three years or so of general 'American' history, environmental history, gender studies, and the rest. I don't mind having broad offerings, but I'd really prefer that students have tools to evaluate those offerings without being forced into them.

What concerns me more is the general societal "either/or" mindset. I also tend to suspect (but can't prove) that some of that stems from the breakdown in fundamentals in our education (evaluation skills for one).

[Surferbeetle]

Adam,

I appreciate your assessment:



I have to disagree with you on this. Bachelors degrees used to mean someone was educated (most of the time.) Now most bachelors degrees are only an assurance that they NOW know what they should have known coming out of high school. (Most of the time.) I am not saying that all people are like this, just too many.

'Education creep', by which I mean a high school diploma used to carry far more economic weight than it does today is an issue due to an explosion of knowledge and increased specialization. High School is a broad education. It's my opinion that a degree (in whatever the topic) means one has been exposed to defined body of knowledge and can use analytical tools typical to that discipline to make assessments and decisions. As you rightly point out however quality and motivation of employees varies and the buyer/employer needs to ensure that generalists and specialists are selected and employed appropriately.


....I really question whether it would be better to provide the education in house. It would not be hard to out-do even the most prestigious universities these days.......Is the reason you are mentioning associate degrees that they are a shorter term of study that is less expensive and has fewer credits? If this is so, the military should make arrangements with state schools so that they can simply accumulate credit.

The US Military is to be applauded for providing tuition assistance, block training programs and myriad military training opportunities. However not all of these training events translate into credits at an accredited university and in some cases this is rightly so. The interaction our service members receive at civilian institutions helps them to 'think outside the box'. Our military would benefit from having a program by which all who meet the requirements would get an accredited university education....what an incredible recruiting tool this would be and from a purely management standpoint our ability to fight the 'graduate level' of war would also be increased (we are experiencing mission creep into state department functions but that is for another post). In my opinion associate degrees offer a quick and measurable return on investment as well as building academic confidence in those who undertake the course of study. A university or tech school education, regardless of the level (A.S to PhD), benefits all involved and is a great return on investment for the nation...


I absolutely agree with this. I've been meaning to get around to writing something about this but that never happened. On top of this I would suggest that the DoD create a program where language programs in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, etc. (the more exotic but useful languages these days) are subsidized in public schools.

In my opinion language skills quantifiably and qualitatively increase ones effectiveness in an area of operations, while helping one to realistically to assess problems and generate solutions appropriate to the locale in which one operates. If a solution falls apart after one leaves it speaks volumes about the effectiveness and sustainability of said solution...I would submit that often times failures such as these are due to a failure to understand the language and thus the culture.

Regards,

Steve

[Surferbeetle]

It's entirely possible to be "testosterone-filled" and still be an operational genius. Is there a fear of testosterone? (Testosterone-phobia?) While academia calls for rigor in examining "some" ideas, I find there is little place in it for those who "get it" on a visceral level, but are less able to process it intellectually.

At the end of the day, those are the guys you are going to have to ask to execute.

This post has inspired me to share that I am no longer even the slightest bit interested in pursuing further academic goals, except to improve my writing ability at work. I thank many of the folks here for helping me discover that.

120mm,

Before I finished off my first degree I used to deliver newspapers in the morning, collect bills during the day, and load semi's at night....never say never would be my advice to you ;)

On another note Bavaria is a mighty fine place to be....:)

Regards,

Steve

[Adam L]

I, for one, have never let academia get in the way of my scholarly studies...:D



Good for you! I often feel that the “academia” are the academic arenas land mines. :D




Back to Adam's comment about broadening history education...my concern right now is that it is in fact TOO broad. By that I mean people are forced to examine too many sub-fields without being prepared with the basic tools. By that I mean a good course at the freshman level in both historiography AND research and writing skills. As it stands at most universities, students don't even really get a chance to learn these basic skills until after they've suffered through three years or so of general 'American' history, environmental history, gender studies, and the rest.



I think you are getting the wrong idea of what I am saying. First of all, my point is that they are studying too many sub-fields. My point is that they are too concentrated at an early level.


Before I continue on this, I am going to address the “basic skills” you mentioned. “research and writing skills” is something that a student should poses coming in as a freshmen. They should already have basic tools. Unfortunately most students are not entering college with these skills. Also, when I mean a broad education, I don't mean genders studies, political science and all that other horse hockey. Personally, I think “gender studies” is one of the most idiotic concepts I've heard of. It has permeated almost every damn area of study. There are people out their discussing “gender relations' and “feminist issues” in The Heart of Darkness. There are none! Environmental history sounds like a stupid course. (I can think of ways it could be done well, but I doubt it is most of the time. Let's just say that these days it is going to have a political bias.)


Too many majors are spending too much time on ridiculous little tangents (the “sub-fields” you mentioned) or material that is just ridiculous, absurd, irrelevant or just moronic. Look at English majors. There was a time when English majors studied much of the western English canon. Today it seems half their course are “creative writing I & II”, “Writing Seminar I & II” and “Creative Thought I & II.” While two or three are Poetry, Fiction and maybe a seminar course in some novel. This is absurd.


My point about history, is that there are certain things I should never have too explain to someone with a BA in history, just as I should never run into and English major who has not studied Milton. Unfortunately, this is too often the case.


I don't mind having broad offerings, but I'd really prefer that students have tools to evaluate those offerings without being forced into them.



I agree, I just think that they should have the basic skills when they get there. If a student just doesn't have the skills, or doesn't have the background to study history perhaps they need to take a year to fill in their knowledge before they proceed with their studies. I don't know why this is such an unreasonable standard.




What concerns me more is the general societal "either/or" mindset. I also tend to suspect (but can't prove) that some of that stems from the breakdown in fundamentals in our education (evaluation skills for one).


I agree. If you are saying we have to teach this on a college level, there is no better way to teach analysis than to immerse the student in demanding work. (I again restate my objection to needing to teach it at this level.) The problem with this these days is that most professors are incapable of assigning work demanding genuine analysis. Rather they want a regurgitation of their own opinions, tendencies and papers. (No offense intended to any professors reading this site who are not of this sort. :D)


Adam L

[Adam L]

Surferbeetle,



'Education creep', by which I mean a high school diploma used to carry far more economic weight than it does today is an issue due to an explosion of knowledge and increased specialization. High School is a broad education. It's my opinion that a degree (in whatever the topic) means one has been exposed to defined body of knowledge and can use analytical tools typical to that discipline to make assessments and decisions. As you rightly point out however quality and motivation of employees varies and the buyer/employer needs to ensure that generalists and specialists are selected and employed appropriately.


Yes, a high school diploma does carry less weight, but I believe this has much to do with how poor the graduate's skills are these days. I disagree with your opinion on the “explosion of knowledge an increased specialization.” Although there are certainly areas where this is true, I believe as a general rule it is not. I believe it is appearing to be true mainly because we are acting as if it is so.

A highschool education is a broad education, but that does not mean its focuses are in a few very exact areas. Everyone coming out of high school (actually it should be 10th grade) should be capable of writing a clear and concise business letter using proper grammar and punctuation. Everyone should be able to know math through algebra and trigonometry. Everyone should have a “timeline” of history. Everyone should know the basic fundamentals of chemistry, physics and biology. (This is a lot less material than it sound like. I can elaborate on this later.) On top of these core education requirements there should be some courses that make sure every student knows what a credit card, checking account, etc. is and how to use one.

I would like to be able to agree with your point about degrees. Although I believe this holds true in many areas, almost all sciences (engineering, physics, etc.,) I do not know if that is so anymore. (See my comments about overly concentrated study in my response to Steve Blair.)

I'm a little confuse about which statement you are commenting on with your last sentence.



The US Military is to be applauded for providing tuition assistance, block training programs and myriad military training opportunities. However not all of these training events translate into credits at an accredited university and in some cases this is rightly so. The interaction our service members receive at civilian institutions helps them to 'think outside the box'. Our military would benefit from having a program by which all who meet the requirements would get an accredited university education....what an incredible recruiting tool this would be and from a purely management standpoint our ability to fight the 'graduate level' of war would also be increased (we are experiencing mission creep into state department functions but that is for another post). In my opinion associate degrees offer a quick and measurable return on investment as well as building academic confidence in those who undertake the course of study. A university or tech school education, regardless of the level (A.S to PhD), benefits all involved and is a great return on investment for the nation...


What I was suggesting was not that military training be accepted as college credit. I was saying that the military could set up its own college system, either on its own or in cooperation with state or private schools, that is at least of the same caliber as any of the top schools. I agree that having service members at civilian institution is a good idea, but I believe that matriculating everyone might not be the best idea. If a bachelors degree is actually making that big a difference in that many peoples abilities, something has gone terribly wrong. (as a benefit, I think might be a good idea) Also, as I have stated before, degrees are not what they used to be.

There are some good associates degrees, but many of them outside of technical areas, are simply courses in knowledge and skills that they should have had coming out of high school. Any high school graduate should be capable of being a secretary. Unfortunately this isn't so any more. On the other hand, there are some good programs and I get your point. Still, I am not happy with the way our education system is setting itself up.

I have to say that I am, and have always been, a great proponent of technical schools. After spending a few years in Alberta I am now “THE” proponent of technical schools. (Sort-Of-Off-Subject-Comment - I am sad to say though that too many school systems are getting rid of and/or neglecting their technical feeder programs.)

Sorry for another longkeyboarded (Sorry for this silliness. I couldn't think of the appropriate counterpart to long winded. I very much would like to have said long penned, but I am using a keyboard. Also, telling someone I am long penned might be construed as sexual harassment these days. Longtyped also has an air of bad innuendo. LOL!:D) response. I just like to type a lot. (sorry for that)

Adam L

(ON second thought "long penned' and 'Long typed' sound like something out of a bad porno movie. Also, by 'bad' I mean good! LOL! :))

[selil]

It is always interesting to see people argue about knowledge, academics, and what makes a good learning environment. For as many people there are, well, there are that many learning styles. Attached is a series of slides I would share to give you an idea about knowledge and learning.

The first slide is what most people think of learning and in truth represents what happens with training. Education and training are not corollary or synonymous. They have substantial differences in how they are carried out. Expertise is defined by the breadth of knowledge in the career.

The second slide show the standard configuration of how academics works. If you consider this within the degree/option/discipline of a student the start out with a breadth of knowledge and work ever more stringently into the depth of an area. Expertise is defined by the depth of knowledge in the subject.

The synthesis paradigm is what I refer to as the renaissance man. The individual has a good grasp and depth of knowledge in narrowing their focus to a point. But, their theoretical knowledge grows from that expertise and expands their capability from a variety of other disciplines.

I would suggest that we expect the third option for the military scholar. Go to University systems to get the second option. And reward those who fulfill the first option. This would suggest a disconnect between the requirements and the realities of education and professionalism in the military learning environment.

This is of course a work in progress and part of a series I'm writing on the scholarship of teaching and learning for my BLOG. But, since the server farm where my BLOG is hosted burned up on Saturday you'll have fun kicking the pretty pictures.

[jmm99]

Thought some very basic "know thy adversary" work might be interesting.

For what it is worth.


1. Some Basics

Brian McKenna, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Area of specialization: Medical Anthropology, Environmental Health, and Indians of North America
[minor personal data redacted]

Cancer Terrorists Unmasked
http://www.counterpunch.org/mckenna11212007.html

Native Resurgence Spurs Hope
http://www.counterpunch.org/mckenna11242006.html

We All Live in Poletown Now
http://www.ejmagazine.com/2006a/mckenna_extra.html

Brian McKenna, University of Michigan – Dearborn
Environmental Deception and the Battle against Pollution in Greater Lansing Michigan: Lessons from an Applied Anthropologist
http://www.umich.edu/~meldi/PDF/Summary_FacDiversity%20EJ%20Rsrch%20Cnfr.pdf

The New Terror
http://www.ejmagazine.com/2005b/05b_printfriendly/p_terror.html
Brian McKenna is a medical/environmental anthropologist who teaches at the University of Michigan - Dearborn. He teaches a number of courses there including, “Indians of North America,” and “Doing Anthropology.” He is currently working on a book titled, “We all Live in Company Town USA.”

US: Dow's Knowledge Factory (2004)
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=10008
Brian McKenna is a health and environmental writer with a Ph.D. in anthropology. He has taught at Michigan State University and the University of Michigan. He resides in East Lansing.

How Green is Your Pediatrician? (2003)
http://www.homs.com/pdf/ftguaugsept2003.pdf
Brian McKenna is a medical anthropologist who worked in medical education at Michigan State
University for six years.

Conclusion: McKenna has no expertise to design a program in "military antropology".


2. Brief Comments

1. McKenna's agitprop script was very familiar (think leftist anti-war arguments vs. Vietnam War). Thought he might be a left over Weatherman who ended up in academia; but it seems he is of the second generation.

2. Some "logic" by Peter Rigby, who "was fond of saying, 'Men make revolutions. Anthropologists are men. Therefore anthropologists make revolutions.'" Hmm .. seems Rigby forgot the word "All" in the first sentence. I don't think Bertrand Russell would be proud of him, since Russell kept his mathematical integrity despite his political views.

3. LOL on McK teaching Marxist-Leninism. How to learn that:

- read Marx (what he said, not what others say he said)

- read Lenin (what he said, not what others say he said)

- listen to Radio Moscow & subscribe to Daily Worker (later Daily World).

That to me from an old communist (CPUSA member, lower level so probably not under Cheka's thumb, but who knows).

3. Appears the Master and Margarita was not on McK's reading list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Master_and_Margarita

4. Have my own list of movies, but who cares ?

[jmm99]

I hope these are in acceptable format.

[The following are some of his Net tracks: Peter Rigby (below) is cited in Why I Want to Teach Anthropology at the Army War College.]

http://www.counterpunch.org/mckenna05282008.html

------------------------------------
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu/msg91896.html

Re: The rise of an emotion based left was Bush using drugs
Brian McKenna
Thu, 05 Aug 2004 09:00:30 -0700

-----------------------------------
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu/msg91908.html

[Same topic; later in day]

-------------------------------
http://www.mail-archive.com/pen-l@sus.csuchico.edu/msg29346.html

[PEN-L] The Liberal Virus
Brian McKenna
Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:22:53 -0700

***
... a brief review of Amin today:
http://www.counterpunch.org/sandronsky10062007.html

***
"I joined with the anthros because it offered one of the few social bases to fight relentlessly against capital."

[This is the best one; includes some Peter Rigby discussion]

[quoted data a sample; but relevant to present discussion]

Conclusion: You can easily draw your own.

[Cavguy]

Forum Members,
Upfront, I have reflected on my comments and tried to understand why I laced my comments with such sharp attacks and anger. I am sorry.

I I did not intend a "cheap shot" to the forum but was offended at how you where beating the geek up on the playground. I did intend for some to get a "cold shower" and get off their high horse.

I consider you all more mentors than peers. Thank you for the coaching and patience.

I have learned alot today. And it was all free. Heck is anyone shooting at us?

Sincerely,
In need of tact and persuasion, I am
Multi-skilled Leader

Iron sharpens iron--Look at the quality of the posts now!
Again, thank you for your mentoring, coaching and teaching.

Interesting apology. How topic was brought up did not reflect well on:

A) Status as Military Officer
B) PhD Canidacy
C) General Discourse.

For not intending to be a "cheap shot", I would avoid pejorative words in the future (especially in a first post) such as:

Small Minds
pitiful dinosaurs
You PAWNS
Military-Industrial-ACADEMIC complex
You are the very FUNDAMENTALIST
COLD WAR, McCain Republican
pitiful Dinosaurs of Professional Military Education
participants are the very small minds
I can also call on our esteemed LTC (Dr.) Nagl here, if you need me to, I doubt he would approve of your approach.

You're welcome here in the battle of ideas. Not to insult the council members. Attack the idea, not the messenger. We do have pretty divergent viewpoints here, as evidenced in many threads. I had not commented on this one simply because Dr. McKenna wasn't worth the energy.

[SteveMetz]

I can also call on our esteemed LTC (Dr.) Nagl here, if you need me to, I doubt he would approve of your approach.

Are you suggesting that he's *not* a dinosaur-brained pawn of the military-industrial-academic complex?

[Cavguy]

Are you suggesting that he's *not* a dinosaur-brained pawn of the military-industrial-academic complex?

I dunno ... he is going to CNAS though .... hmmmmmmmmm

[zenpundit]

I'm not wasting any of my time on McKenna.

Instead, regarding the slides posted by Selil:

Sam,

1. Are these part of a larger presentation ? If so, can we see it ?

2. I think in the congruent, overlapping, diamond area you have the point at which horizontal thinking - analogies, patterns, extrapolation with cognate fields or unrelated domains - is most effective. MA-PhD have the skill-sets and experience to carry new insights to full development (HOWEVER it is important they not have the the kind of mental blinders that prevent most experts from looking outside of their comfort zone). This would be E.O. Wilson's "consilience" point or the innovation/ "medici effect" zone of thinkers like John Kao and Frans Johannson.

[selil]

Yes it is part of a larger presentation. It will be a BLOG post at some point. Every journal I sent it to said. Um No.. (-> me peeved <-). This is from the series I've been writing on education (expectation/disconnect).


Here are two of the other slides... (Though they don't make much sense without the text).


First image is about no student is the same on what they expect or get.
http://selil.com/blog_image/education_graphic_01.jpg

Second image. Well there is a transition between elementary and high school education environments. From broad general education to silos.
http://selil.com/blog_image/education_graphic_02.jpg

[Ken White]

The Journals are stupid. :mad:

[selil]

The loopy anthropologist title really got my attention when Dr. Metz posted it. I have expressed a few views in the thread, but those views are part of a larger much broader look at education. When I first joined SWJ/C a few years ago I was looking at training issues for use at a new facility. I have always been interested in how people look at academia, and especially interested in how the military looks at academia.

Dr. Mckenna in his own way is helping prove my thesis that academia has moved to far into specialization and there are issues with the silos of disciplines in the University. Small Wars Journal ran a story of mine that is part of a series the story was called "The Warrior Scholar (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/05/the-warrior-scholar/)". Where I made a passing look at the apprentice/master training model and how scholarship is very important to the military art.

This larger effort is within an interdisciplinary activity known as "The scholarship of teaching and learning" that is a growing chunk of academia. Much though of what they look at is applying metrics to education. I on the other hand have a much grander goal and likely will never see it to fruition. The two pieces of that goal that Dr. Mckenna would never understand are the meta-scholar and the meta-renaisance . On the one hand here on the Small Wars Council we go around about monthly and people are talking bad about academics. On the other hand I don't think academics truly understand why others are hostile to them especially the military.

The first part, meta-scholars, are scholars of scholars. Many members of Small Wars Council are just that, and in every discussion of Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz you prove that thesis. Though scholars in their own right some members expand beyond that role. The second part, meta-renaisance, is a pet project of mine. I have written about the failure or "The dark ages: Modern anti-intellectualism and failure of the thinking man (http://selil.com/?p=162)" in trying to describe where we may be going in academia and the reasons for that.

The slides that I posted earlier are from the piece that kind of explains why Dr. Mckenna was pushing his ideology off so easily on others as if it should be accepted at face value. The disciplinary silo's and sub discipline echo chambers of thought ignore as inconsequential all outside considerations. Of course he reacts the way he does that is how he is trained and compensated. As insurgent scholars entering academia each member of the military represents a risk of reaching the credentialed heights of scholarly aptitude, but people outside their community or discipline can still be rejected by the academic effete.

The latest piece is about the construction of academic learning models and curriculum. The blog article is "Education paradigm: How you get there may not be where you are going (http://selil.com/?p=173)", and is fairly lengthy. It comes from a lecture I give to my freshmen, and juniors (ju co transfers). As a topic it doesn't fit exactly into SWC/J territory, and as a journal paper it has been refused a few times. The article does reflect insurgent scholarship bent on ending the dark ages of scholarship we are currently engaging in and helping to create a meta-renaisance. There are a few other articles in the group I haven't put up yet. I just wanted to explain that there are people that are looking at what Dr. Mckenna is up to, and the why he is doing it, and not everybody in academia agrees.

thanks

[SteveMetz]

Nicely put. And much more thoughtful than my post which was mostly just anger at the arrogance the guy had toward war college students.

I do have an alibi: my youngest kid is graduating from high school Friday, so I'm in the midst of a raging mid life crisis. But I did what I could: I bought a BMW motorcycle today

[Van]

I did what I could: I bought a BMW motorcycle today

Great way to derail the thread, Steve. :mad:

Now, all you academics who rate a little respect out of us neandrethals, get back to abusing your collegues who are in desperate need of a clue.

Jeesh. Just when it was getting good.

Oh yeah, "testosterone-laden" as a perjorative? I can't even address this without a reciprocal ad homonim attack.

[zenpundit]

Selil wrote;


"Dr. Mckenna in his own way is helping prove my thesis that academia has moved to far into specialization and there are issues with the silos of disciplines in the University"

While I endorse Sam's argument, I think the problem with academics like McKenna is that they like to borrow the prestige accrued from their disciplinary "silo" and apply it unearned to their political opinions, which may or may not be any better informed than those that can be heard in any local bar, circa 3 am.

They skip over the hard thinking part in order to get to the intended result they "know" is right. A bad methodology. If you are "right" then your reasoning will withstand fair scrutiny. Or even a lot of unfair scrutiny.

[Ron Humphrey]

Selil wrote;



While I endorse Sam's argument, I think the problem with academics like McKenna is that they like to borrow the prestige accrued from their disciplinary "silo" and apply it unearned to their political opinions, which may or may not be any better informed than those that can be heard in any local bar, circa 3 am.

They skip over the hard thinking part in order to get to the intended result they "know" is right. A bad methodology. If you are "right" then your reasoning will withstand fair scrutiny. Or even a lot of unfair scrutiny.

I also agree with Sam on the culture that has developed over the years regarding academia and it's (for lack of a better term) presentation to those outside of it's esteemed halls.

I was asking someone the other day about tthis sort of thing and truthfully I find it curious how the concept of self preservation may dwell at the base if the issues much as with any other group in society.

How often is it that the relevance of one's particular studies or acollades actually coincides with a been there done that in order to truly validate their knowledge base.

Example : (among the hallowed halls how many of those whose expertise or specialty truly comes with as much experience as it does education) There must be balance but if one where to look at war for instance, there are relatively few opportunities to be both a battle hardened and PHD educated individual when you look at it in the grander scheme of things.

I say all this to say, does it really seem all so unlikely that there might be somewhat of a discomfort between those who are the educated SME of what military's do and those who actually have done it and are also coming into their academic silos?

[Multi-skilled Leader]

Interesting apology. How topic was brought up did not reflect well on:

A) Status as Military Officer
B) PhD Canidacy
C) General Discourse.

You're welcome here in the battle of ideas. Not to insult the council members. Attack the idea, not the messenger. We do have pretty divergent viewpoints here, as evidenced in many threads. I had not commented on this one simply because Dr. McKenna wasn't worth the energy.

Thank you for continued coaching, CavGuy. You are a gentlemen and scholar.
Unfortunately, my preacher told me a long time ago that I can not take away the "spoken word, spent arrow, or missed opportunity." This thread has turned course and actually brought up some great issues. (I even got Rob Thorton to participate!)

Therefore, thank you for welcoming me aboard in your CavGuy way...let me know what else I need to do to get my spurs... ;)

Sincerely,
MSL--my 3rd or 4th post! I lose count it's getting so high!:D

[zenpundit]

Ron wrote:


"I say all this to say, does it really seem all so unlikely that there might be somewhat of a discomfort between those who are the educated SME of what military's do and those who actually have done it and are also coming into their academic silos?"

Agreed. When individuals who are highly competent in one field, have success in a second, it discomforts everyone in the second field who were resting on their laurels. And it's a good thing that they are shaken up. When you stop growing intellectually and exploring, it's easy to stagnate, ruminating on the same comfortable assumptions and familiar concepts. You end up becoming a defeneder of the orthodoxy or status quo.

[marct]

Hi Sam,


The latest piece is about the construction of academic learning models and curriculum. The blog article is "Education paradigm: How you get there may not be where you are going (http://selil.com/?p=173)", and is fairly lengthy.

It's a very interesting piece. I was going to post a reply here, but I needed a blog topic, so I put it up here (http://marctyrrell.com/2008/06/05/some-thoughts-on-training-and-education/) instead :D.

[SteveMetz]

I want to register a complaint--you guys have taken my emotional and adolescent rant and hijacked it into something important and even profound. I guess I'm going to have to work even harder to make sure the threads I start stay in the gutter.

[Tom Odom]

Nice bike, Steve....

keep it out of the gutter...

Gutter threads are safer...

[Ken White]

Enjoy and play with the ABS, it's awesome.

[marct]

Hey Steve,


I want to register a complaint--you guys have taken my emotional and adolescent rant and hijacked it into something important and even profound.

Isn't that what academia is all about :eek::p!?!

[selil]

Young Dr. Metz finally gets a real bike... Mine though is red http://selil.com/slideshow/bmwr1200c/ .

The other BMW I had until recently was this one http://selil.com/slideshow/bmwk1200ltc/ .

The lengthy posts have to go on my BLOG, I um.. well ... err.. run out of space on the forum and then Stan calls me names.

[marct]

The lengthy posts have to go on my BLOG, I um.. well ... err.. run out of space on the forum and then Stan calls me names.

I know, it's just terrible :eek:!! Stan keeps calling ME a romantic (okay, it's true but still :D!).

[sandbag]

Sorry, guys, but I just can't see what all the fuss is about. I'd take McKenna's offer more seriously if it brought actual anthropology into the discussion. Politics and anthropology are interrelated, but they are still different topics.

To state your thesis and then gird your argument with a mixture of fictional narrative, opinion pages and a veneer of statistics does not discourse make.

I'd like to ask the following: does Dr. McKenna's body of work really even apply to our profession? Based on what is posted thus far, I'd argue that it does not. Let's say for argument's sake I'm mediocre at best (maybe this is more true than I let on!)as a tactical-level officer. I have x experience in y operational type. Does this make me qualified to then speak of microeconomics of Culture z? I don't think McKenna has to have served or anything, but I'd like to think that more relevant work than his would be needed. Does somewhere like the AWC grant him audience based on his desire for discourse rather than what he brings to the discourse? Hell, as a disgruntled Major, I'd love to teach at the AWC, but I hardly consider myself qualified to do so.

[jmm99]

This is written by a non-academic Google searcher, with no credentials in anthropology or sociology - other than going out with a soc. grad student at the U of Mich (she was a nice girl).


1. The term "military anthropology", in current use, refers to the use of socio-cultural anthropologists in support of military operations. Some views as to that:

[American] Anthropology Association Formally Disapproves of Military Program
http://chronicle.com/news/article/3389/anthropology-association-formally-disapproves-of-military-program

Kinship Studies - Military Anthropology
http://kinshipstudies.org/?page_id=109


2. USAian "Military Anthropology", as a socio-cultural study of the US military as a "tribe" (with a very extended family, indeed), seems absent as a sub-branch of socio-cultural anthropology.


3. Military sociology is an established sub-branch of sociology. E.g.,

Journal of Political and Military Sociology
http://www.jpms.niu.edu/

Guy Siebold, Core issues and theory in military sociology (2001)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3719/is_200107/ai_n8977420


4. Basic tenets of socio-cultural anthropology require field work; i.e., living near or with the tribe, eventual interaction with its members, their consent to tell their human story, etc. We might also note that the military "tribe" has its own language.

WSU Cultural Anthropology Program: "All graduate programs in cultural anthropology emphasize the importance of field work. All students are encouraged to conduct original field research as part of their graduate training. A foreign language is required at both the M.A. and Ph.D. levels. ... The [MA] thesis should be based on original fieldwork. ... Students whose fieldwork will be conducted among non-speakers of English will be expected to demonstrate competence in this language in a way that satisfies their committees before fieldwork begins."
http://libarts.wsu.edu/anthro/gradcult.html


5. Don't know if the US military would like to studied as a "tribe"; but it would seem to be an interesting subject for an open-minded anthropologist, even if not of the "tribe" or its extended family. Of course, he might find it a cannibal tribe (OP: "... our students would eat him alive and pick their teeth with his bones."). Sounds like Philip Caputo's novel "A Rumor of War" where his marines get super hungry on a search & destroy. ;)

[SteveMetz]

But we have to recognize that there is ideological content in using tribes as a universal model for human society. It was a rejection of the idea that there are "advanced" and "less advanced" societies, or "civilized" and, at least, "less civilized." Of course, this idea has been common in Western culture since the ancient Greeks (and in other cultures like the Chinese).

Beginning in the 1960s (if not earlier) there was an intellectual movement, leftist in ideology, which rejected this idea, stressing that all cultures were more alike than different.

This debate has intensified again as people have sought to place the "war on terror" (and I personally hate that phrase an refuse to use it without quotation marks) in context. Once school of thought attributes it to shortcomings or flaws in Islamic culture. The other--popular within the ideology that dominates many academic disciplines--rejects this explanation and seeks others, most often the idea that violent extremism from the Islamic world is a defensive response. Downplaying the structural and functional differences between Islamic and Western cultures is an element of this explanation.

There, that's the only thing even vaguely thoughtful I plan to say today. I take delivery on my midlife crisis motorcycle (which I have labeled "Mein Schwein") in a couple of hours, so plan to spend the day attempting to not become a brain smear on the pavement.

[Rank amateur]

so plan to spend the day attempting to not become a brain smear on the pavement.

Never, ever go into a corner too fast. (It's extremely difficult to slow down mid corner and I've read a couple of articles in the local paper about part time riders - enjoying the nice weather - who have gotten themselves killed just by going into a corner too fast.)

I'm all for amateurs jumping into the deep end - and mid life crises - but risk management is crucial. (I'm going to racing school, because there's about 200 yards of empty field around the track in case I screw up.) Stay safe and have fun.


But we have to recognize that there is ideological content in using tribes as a universal model for human society. It was a rejection of the idea that there are "advanced" and "less advanced" societies, or "civilized" and, at least, "less civilized." Of course, this idea has been common in Western culture since the ancient Greeks (and in other cultures like the Chinese).

Beginning in the 1960s (if not earlier) there was an intellectual movement, leftist in ideology, which rejected this idea, stressing that all cultures were more alike than different.

This debate has intensified again as people have sought to place the "war on terror" (and I personally hate that phrase an refuse to use it without quotation marks) in context. Once school of thought attributes it to shortcomings or flaws in Islamic culture. The other--popular within the ideology that dominates many academic disciplines--rejects this explanation and seeks others, most often the idea that violent extremism from the Islamic world is a defensive response. Downplaying the structural and functional differences between Islamic and Western cultures is an element of this explanation.

When I got time to start a new thread, I was going to say - based on observation and not ideology - we seem to be having a lot more success working directly with tribes instead of nation building. It looks as though the "ungoverned territories are a breeding ground for terrorism" school of thought is in need of some revision.

[SteveMetz]

Never, ever go into a corner too fast. (It's extremely difficult to slow down mid corner and I've read a couple of articles in the local paper about part time riders - enjoying the nice weather - who have gotten themselves killed just by going into a corner too fast.)

I'm all for amateurs jumping into the deep end - and mid life crises - but risk management is crucial. (I'm going to racing school, because there's about 200 yards of empty field around the track in case I screw up.) Stay safe and have fun.



When I got time to start a new thread, I was going to say - based on observation and not ideology - we seem to be having a lot more success working directly with tribes instead of nation building. It looks as though the "ungoverned territories are a breeding ground for terrorism" school of thought is in need of some revision.


I've never subscribed to the "ungoverned territories are a breeding ground for terrorism" idea. To tell you the truth, I think that's more a justification for a large military than it is a description of reality. Even if it were true, more effective and efficient to launch spoiling attacks as needed than to try and turn ungoverned spaces into governed ones. There are good reasons that ungoverned spaces are ungoverned, and it isn't because it never occurred to the local regime to emulate Americans (which is what we tend to assume).

I think I'm going to be OK cornering, given my tens of thousands of miles on road bicycles. Only ever went down on it once, and that was when I was really new at it and a kid ran in front of me.

[Ken White]

... Even if it were true, more effective and efficient to launch spoiling attacks as needed than to try and turn ungoverned spaces into governed ones. There are good reasons that ungoverned spaces are ungoverned, and it isn't because it never occurred to the local regime to emulate Americans (which is what we tend to assume).

I think I'm going to be OK cornering, given my tens of thousands of miles on road bicycles. Only ever went down on it once, and that was when I was really new at it and a kid ran in front of me.To both!

Have fun!

[Rank amateur]

I think I'm going to be OK cornering, given my tens of thousands of miles on road bicycles. Only ever went down on it once, and that was when I was really new at it and a kid ran in front of me.

But none of those were when you were having a mid life crisis, and the guys I read about didn't lay it down, they went too fast, "pushed" wide and hit something. Pick your spots. Have fun.

[marct]

But we have to recognize that there is ideological content in using tribes as a universal model for human society. It was a rejection of the idea that there are "advanced" and "less advanced" societies, or "civilized" and, at least, "less civilized." Of course, this idea has been common in Western culture since the ancient Greeks (and in other cultures like the Chinese).

Yup, and if anyone is feeling masochistic, I have a pretty decent lecture on that development. It's actually tied in with general conceptualizations of cosmic time and, specifically, with views on whether time is linear, circular or spiral. In the West, the formal expressions of it go back to Herodotus and the development of a form of social engineering (e.g. history as a mechanistic explanation).


Beginning in the 1960s (if not earlier) there was an intellectual movement, leftist in ideology, which rejected this idea, stressing that all cultures were more alike than different.

Certainly earlier inside Anthropology (~1895+) - things like the psychic unity of mankind and other Boasian concepts tended to reject the earlier ideas of unilinear evolution and social Darwinism. World War I was pretty much the death blow to the old unilinear evolutionary models except in various leftist enclaves, which tended to have an early form of multi-linear evolution anyway.

Actually, the stress wasn't so much on the cultures being the same as it was on a) humans, as a species, being the same and b) socio-economic forces operating as "natural laws". Pretty much the only school of social theory that adopted both these points were the varieties of Marxism. At the same time, say the 1950's - 60's, they also had enough symbolic capital to act as a visible opponent to functionalism and they got taken up by many as the ideology of choice against the status quo.

From a scientific standpoint, I hold that they are extremely flawed in both their basic assumptions and in their adoption / co-optation of religous symbolism. First, most of the Maxian theories are based on two totally false premises: the labour theory of value and a general dismissal of individualistic motivations like greed, anger and stupidity. Second, part of the reason why they were adopted stems back to the old Cold War conflict with the Soviets and a sub-conscious symbolic binary opposition, something aong the lines of "functionalism supports capitalism and he US goivernment, only the Soviets (Marxists) oppose it, therefore if I oppose the actions of the US government I must be a Marxist." Or, to put it more formally,

Marxists oppose Capitalism
I oppose Capitalism,
Therefore I am a Marxist

Rule of the excluded third <sigh>; typical of magical thinking.


This debate has intensified again as people have sought to place the "war on terror" (and I personally hate that phrase an refuse to use it without quotation marks) in context. Once school of thought attributes it to shortcomings or flaws in Islamic culture. The other--popular within the ideology that dominates many academic disciplines--rejects this explanation and seeks others, most often the idea that violent extremism from the Islamic world is a defensive response. Downplaying the structural and functional differences between Islamic and Western cultures is an element of this explanation.

Steve, I totally agree with you on the ridiculousness of the term "War on Terror". It is a classic example of magical thinking and, in many cases, is analytically useless. I also agree with you on the binary split that has shown up; the Clash of Civilizations vs. the Victimization of Islam. Sometimes I am amazed (and PO'd) at how readily we dust off pseudo-scientific explanations from the dustbin of history. Huntington's Clash model is really only a slightly updated form of deGobineau's model from 1853 see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Essay_on_the_Inequality_of_the_Human_Races)), while the Victimization advocates are implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, arguing that radical Islamist irhabi violence is merely an expression of emergent class consciousness.

Where, I keep asking myself, is the science in all of this? It certainly doesn't show up in most of the academic stuff I've read except in the works that are extremely situated ("tactical" one might say). Personally, I'm still waiting to find (or build ;)) a theoretical model that is more predictive than the two currently available.

[SteveMetz]

But none of those were when you were having a mid life crisis, and the guys I read about didn't lay it down, they went too fast, "pushed" wide and hit something. Pick your spots. Have fun.

I got around the block once and had to stop. My neighborhood is having a yard sale so every geriatric idiot in a three county radius is weaving back and forth peering at other people's junk

[selil]

Steve since you decided on a BMW now you need Aerostich.

[Rank amateur]

I got around the block once and had to stop. My neighborhood is having a yard sale so every geriatric idiot in a three county radius is weaving back and forth peering at other people's junk

Getting old sucks, doesn't it. Did you seen any attractive women a couple years older than your oldest daughter?

[Rank amateur]

Personally, I'm still waiting to find (or build ;)) a theoretical model that is more predictive than the two currently available.

I subscribe to the following theory:


1. The insane are only geopolitically dangerous if the sane start following them.
2. The sane will only start following the insane if they feel hopeless and have no sane options.

So when you have a charismatic nut job - i.e. Hitler and UBL - plus a bunch of hopeless people, you have the potential for the formation of a very bizarre and destructive movement.

Since lunacy is difficult to eradicate or predict, it makes sense not to have large groups of hopeless people: i.e. the Marshall plan.

But that doesn't mean these movement are inevitable, or our government is screwed up or whatever. It just means that when these conditions exist, this can happen.

Probably the best way to predict is to listen to the nut job. Both Hitler and UBL said what they were going to do before they did it.

[SteveMetz]

Steve since you decided on a BMW now you need Aerostich.

I've already gotten one Hein Gericke j (http://www.heingericke-usa.com/)acket and ordered another, and ordered Alpinestar boots.

[jmm99]

re: Metz-marct discussion (p. 4)

In attempting to see things from the viewpoint of our extreme Salafist brethren, I like to start with Maududi. Maududi wrote with clarity (as also his intros to each sura in the Koran) and brevity. His much larger body of work is lost to me, since I am not an Arabist.

Sayyeed Abdul A'la Maududi, Jihad in Islam (Lahore, 1939) (pamphlet based on an address given by Maududi on April 13, 1939), where he answered the question :

"What does Jihad Actually Mean?

"If Islam is a “Religion”, and Muslims are a “Nation”, according to the commonly accepted understandings of these terms, then Jihad - despite the fact that it has been dignified with the title “The Best of all Prayers” in Islam - becomes a meaningless and useless term. But Islam is not the name of a mere “Religion”, nor is Muslim the title of a “Nation”. In reality Islam is a revolutionary ideology and programme which seeks to alter the social order of the whole world and rebuild it in conformity with its own tenets and ideals." [p5 in this .pdf]

http://www.ukim.org/dawah/jihad.pdf

I suggest that Maududi saw the "center of gravity" as the person. Convert the person and all good things would flow from enough conversions (which, btw, cannot be forced). So, Maududi's program requires true believers, cutting across national and even tribal boundaries.

Maududi also makes it clear that there is no distinction between "offensive" and "defensive" jihad; that political and military methods are interlinked to achieve the end result; and that his brand of Islam is not adverse to technology, trade and commerce, applied in conformity with Islamic standards.

So, we have a utopian end result (cf., Marxist-Leninism); but based on a religious construct encompassing not only politics and governance, but all aspects of a person's life. Pretty heady stuff for many people.

Focusing on "tribes" does come closer to Maududi's "center of gravity" - the person. Focusing on "nations" seems irrelevant. Just some thoughts on a person who seems to have been a "practical anthropologist".

Sorry, can't help on motorcyles. Physically unable to ride a bicycle, or to safely mount a motorcycle (or a horse). But have fun. ;)

[zenpundit]

Rank Amateur wrote:


So when you have a charismatic nut job - i.e. Hitler and UBL - plus a bunch of hopeless people, you have the potential for the formation of a very bizarre and destructive movement.

Hitler and UBL were/are fanatics, not primarily mentally ill figures though neurotic conditions and personality disorders may have been aggravating factors in their decision making styles.

[marct]

Hi RA,


1. The insane are only geopolitically dangerous if the sane start following them.
2. The sane will only start following the insane if they feel hopeless and have no sane options.

So when you have a charismatic nut job - i.e. Hitler and UBL - plus a bunch of hopeless people, you have the potential for the formation of a very bizarre and destructive movement.

Hmmm, I've got a few reservations about some of the assumptions here. First, I would hold that "sanity" is culturally defined. For example, "hearing voices" has been defined as "sane", "normal" and "holy" in many cultures, although in ours it is one of the few guarantees of getting of on a "not guilty due to mental defect" defence.

Second, with a few minor (and one major) exception, I don't think that we, as a species, have developed a "mental" technology that can actually define what is and is not sane, so we default to cultural definitions.

Third, what makes you think that the nut jobs don't already control our societies :eek::D?


Since lunacy is difficult to eradicate or predict, it makes sense not to have large groups of hopeless people: i.e. the Marshall plan.

Always assuming that "lunacy" is based on material comfort - an assumption I am not altogether comfortable with. Besides that, some of my best friends are lunatics ;). Seriously, though, that is a good base to start from but, without a good "mental" technology, it is probably doomed to failure in the long run.

[Rank amateur]

As always, word choice is crucial when the debate is so intense. Substitute "extremely radical" for "insane" and I believe that my point holds. There were no cultural, political or economic forces that made it likely that the Germans would try to exterminate all Jews, but it happened because of one man - who wouldn't have received any support if anyone less extreme had been able to address what a large number of Germans considered a legitimate grievance - was able to gain a following.

The longer that perceived grievances go undressed the more likely the aggrieved are too turn to extreme "solutions." And the fact that the majority of people think "there's no way some one would round up and exterminate an entire race of people" or "some radical hiding in an Afghan cave can't attack America" doesn't change that.

[MattC86]

. . . me being me, (as I think I mentioned to Selil the other week), I had to send Dr. McKenna a way-too-long email explaining patiently why he is (1) wrong, (2) underestimating the military and AWC, and (3) still wrong. I got a curt reply saying essentially nothing either way, and assumed that was the end of it.

In retrospect, perhaps I should have taken the patented SteveMetz route and inserted more smart-assery in the email, because yesterday Dr. McKenna "friended" me across the wide array of social networking sites (most of which I'm not even on - got "invited to join") - Facebook, MySpace, something called "plaxo pulse . . ."

Anyway, somebody please tell me I'm not the only one receiving the stalker treatment from Herr Doktor. . .

Regards,

Matt

[zenpundit]

"Anyway, somebody please tell me I'm not the only one receiving the stalker treatment from Herr Doktor. . ."

Some call it stalking...others, a "bromance":D

[Darksaga]

Steve,

I find people like Dr. McKenna to be so ridiculous and arrogant that they make themsleves compeletly ineffective and marginalize themselves.

I look at his proposed agenda for "Anthropology 101" and instead of the teaching of skill sets and professor pushing his own political agenda. For hacks like him, ethics are fluid.

I think what is the most angering is the unmitigated gaul of assuming ignorance...

[marct]

I look at his proposed agenda for "Anthropology 101" and instead of the teaching of skill sets and professor pushing his own political agenda. For hacks like him, ethics are fluid.

Please, don't get me going (again!) on ethics and Anthropology! Actually, his ethics aren't "fluid" so much as his ethical "ground" is in a particular place that I don't want to be :cool:.

[davidbfpo]

An article in the IISS journal 'Survival': Anthropology in Conflict: An Exchange with Rye Barcott, James Peacock, Roberto J. González, Nadje Al-Ali and Laura A. McNamara.

Interesting as Barcott is a US Marine officer, with combat experience in Iraq and as a civilian in a Kenyan slum. The other three are all academics and have varying views.

Can be access (not free) via: http://www.iiss.org/publications/survival/survival-summaries/2008-volume-50/year-2008-issue-3/

'Survival' can often be found in good libraries.

davidbfpo

[marct]

Thanks for the link, David! I'm about halfway through right now and, so far, my favorite line is from James Peacock (page 145)


As an anthropologist, I often wish we would emulate Marines in getting the job done. We actually do get really tough jobs done in fieldwork – that is, in research, discovery – but we become academic when facing the task of applying knowledge to situations of change. We often stop with perspectives, leaving action to the Marines.

And now, onto González's piece...

[marct]

You know, Barcott's concluding paragraph is just beautiful in the "Here I stand" genre:


I would hope that social scientists and other scholars are courageous enough to communicate not just with the ‘general public’, as González recommends, but also with members of his ‘political and military elites’. As to his objection to my calling for us to ‘make the world a better, safer and more equitable place’ on the grounds that this ‘echoes the sentiments of nineteenth-century imperialists’, let me suggest that similar sentiments were echoed by Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Woodrow Wilson, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King Jr, Pope John Paul II and Nelson Mandela. If they were ‘imperialists’ in this regard, then I am honoured to echo them.