PDA

View Full Version : Fiasco at the Army War College?



SWJED
01-08-2009, 05:59 PM
We’ve been tracking two Posts by Tom Ricks at his new blogosphere home (The Best Defense (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node)) at Foreign Policy. The first post, Fiasco at the Army War College (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node/14971) concerns one of our Council members – Dr. Steven Metz (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?authorID=22). The second post, an offshoot of the first, Fiasco at the Army War College: The Sequel (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node/14997)concerns Mark Perry (http://conflictsforum.org/who-we-are/mark-perry/), an author of several books on defense issues, who wrote to say that a series of experiences two years ago at the college so concerned him that he sent a letter outlining his worries to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen.

If you feel compelled to comment here or at the SWJ Blog on either post keep it professional and in context of the issues presented by Ricks – personal attacks won’t cut it. Thanks much.

Stan
01-08-2009, 06:34 PM
Having read this 7 hours ahead of you folks, I had time to reflect on my 23 years in the military and the blunders of free speech (in the service of the USG).

Steve did a great job explaining the realities of PME and his rather "State of Sierra".

Don't let the bastards get you down.

Steve, how's the Beemer running ? :D

Regards, Stan

Cavguy
01-08-2009, 07:05 PM
We’ve been tracking two Posts by Tom Ricks at his new blogosphere home (The Best Defense (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node)) at Foreign Policy. The first post, Fiasco at the Army War College (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node/14971) concerns one of our Council members – Dr. Steven Metz (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/people.cfm?authorID=22). The second post, an offshoot of the first, Fiasco at the Army War College: The sequel concerns Mark Perry (http://conflictsforum.org/who-we-are/mark-perry/), an author of several books on defense issues, who wrote to say that a series of experiences two years ago at the college so concerned him that he sent a letter outlining his worries to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen.

If you feel compelled to comment here or at the SWJ Blog on either post keep it professional and in context of the issues presented by Ricks – personal attacks won’t cut it. Thanks much.

I'm kinda curious why Steve Metz dropped off the board about a year ago and has not returned? He was a really active poster at one time.

jmm99
01-08-2009, 08:15 PM
The link for "The second post, an offshoot of the first, Fiasco at the Army War College: The Sequel" is here (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node/14997).

SWJED
01-08-2009, 08:20 PM
The link for "The second post, an offshoot of the first, Fiasco at the Army War College: The Sequel" is here (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/node/14997).

Thanks, fixed.

RTK
01-08-2009, 09:03 PM
I'm kinda curious why Steve Metz dropped off the board about a year ago and has not returned? He was a really active poster at one time.

I figured it had to do with the book his was writing.

Cavguy
01-08-2009, 09:10 PM
I figured it had to do with the book his was writing.

I did too - except his book has been complete (and published) for quite awhile.

Thinking he doesn't like us anymore ... :(

Steve Blair
01-08-2009, 09:26 PM
The whole concept of academic freedom is an interesting one, and it's often misunderstood by folks outside of the ivy towers. In short, the vast majority of institutions practice freedom to research, but there can be institutional pressures applied when it comes to what is actually published. And until a professor gets tenure, he or she is often employed at the will of the institution...meaning in short that if you piss someone off, you might not get tenure or have your contract renewed for the coming year. And given the competition for professor positions in most of the liberal arts...losing that job might derail your only real shot at a tenure-track position.

Pressure can come from administration, or just from your colleagues in your particular academic department. For an interesting (and inflammatory) look at some of these issues you might google Ward Churchill, although his case is certainly extreme. I seem to recall that the authors of "The Bell Curve" also came under fire from the opposite end of the political spectrum. And having reviewed some of the comments regarding Ricks' post, I can only conclude that there is a "warm and fuzzy" understanding of academic freedom out there that doesn't agree with reality on the civilian side. While there is a general agreement (at least from what I've seen) regarding academic freedom to research, if you're going to publish you'd better have your ducks in a row and be prepared to take some hits...especially if any of your conclusions are controversial. It's different once an individual has tenure, but prior to that it's a very careful balancing act. That doesn't make it right, mind, but that is the reality of the situation.

Schmedlap
01-08-2009, 09:50 PM
I don't understand why this is an academic freedom issue, nor do I understand why Metz thinks that he should have spoken up about the conduct of the war when it was going poorly. I think he got it right when he raised the analogy of a state university professor airing his views versus a faculty member at a national defense institution doing the same.

The role of the intellectual is to challenge, question, test, research. The intellectual has knowledge, but not all of the information. If you're going to "speak out" then you need a good dose of both. If you have only the latter, then you don't "speak out" because, in spite of your vast knowledge, you lack the timely information to develop a clear picture of what is happening. It is more appropriate, in that case, to challenge and question by drawing historical analogies, finding parallels in similar activities, observing patterns and asking what is causing them.

I smell an ulterior motive in this piece by Ricks. It seems like a well-crafted piece of drama that serves to tell an ongoing narrative of pressure upon those in the National Security arena to toe the line on administration policies. Some don't want us to forget - or stop harping on - the real or imagined sins up through 2006. Otherwise, they might need to find a new dead horse to beat. This one should have been sent to the glue factory a couple years ago.

Ken White
01-09-2009, 12:26 AM
...I smell an ulterior motive in this piece by Ricks. It seems like a well-crafted piece of drama that serves to tell an ongoing narrative of pressure upon those in the National Security arena to toe the line on administration policies. Some don't want us to forget - or stop harping on - the real or imagined sins up through 2006. Otherwise, they might need to find a new dead horse to beat. This one should have been sent to the glue factory a couple years ago.Both blog articles do not really pass the 'so what' test. The US Army War College has a bias? Who knew? Does this mean that Yale or Stanford have no biases? I note the sheer naivete of some of the commenters at FP.

I believe I said something earlier about egos and the more of this that surfaces, the more even that doesn't answer the 'why?'

Perry's dismay at his 'treatment' is nothing short of disingenuous, he has been an adviser to Arafat and a confidant -- dupe? -- to and for Hezbollah and Hamas for years. I'm dismayed that he was even asked to an event at the AWC, not that he was not welcomed there.

Something doesn't smell right with this. I think the fish are flipping out of the pond...

Mark O'Neill
01-09-2009, 12:32 AM
to sell on a topic that many are 'over' could it? No such thing as bad publicity....

Bob's World
01-09-2009, 12:37 AM
When I was at the War College as a student, I was both surprised and disappointed at the general atmosphere in regard to job of the school as being to support the strategy coming out of the Pentagon, as opposed to using their tremendous intellectual horsepower and academic environment to get out in front of the Pentagon to shape strategy.

I remember my small group instructor talking about one visiting professor who had been publishing some material outside the party lines like he was a pariah to be avoided.

I've always felt that the service colleges should be shapers of strategy, not followers, perhaps this lifting of the skirt will help promote change in that direction.

SWCAdmin
01-09-2009, 01:33 AM
I did too - except his book has been complete (and published) for quite awhile.

Thinking he doesn't like us anymore ... :(
He has been missed and we would be glad if his SWJ bad habits reappear, but this line of discussion is off topic and sort of unfair. No explanation of absence should be sought or expected, let's just enjoy presence when we are lucky enough to have it.


CIVILIAN FRIENDS: Get upset if you're too busy to talk to them for a week.
VETERAN FRIENDS: Are glad to see you after years, and will happily carry on the same conversation you were having the last time you met.

Ken White
01-09-2009, 02:04 AM
to sell on a topic that many are 'over' could it? No such thing as bad publicity....Never ascribe to a conspiracy what may be simple greed...

Ron Humphrey
01-09-2009, 02:10 AM
During the time frame that he was supposedly not speaking out I remember reading several of his products which helped reinforce my concerns that something wasn't quite the way it needed to be. So although not screaming foul at the top of his lungs I would submit that Steve was doing what he could

Ken White
01-09-2009, 02:27 AM
When I was at the War College as a student, I was both surprised and disappointed at the general atmosphere in regard to job of the school as being to support the strategy coming out of the Pentagon, as opposed to using their tremendous intellectual horsepower and academic environment to get out in front of the Pentagon to shape strategy.The system doesn't work that way and it absolutely should not. The boys in the Five Sided Funny Farm, regardless of talent and intellect, are responsible for strategic thought and effort -- in the military arena (the WH and State, rightly or wrongly, are responsible for the total strategy) -- the Colleges are not responsible for that but they do have the task of teaching folks how to think, not what to think and all have serving Officers in their heirarchy and said officers have primary responsibility to their service and to DoD, not to the nation.

The object is to have elected persons -- or their properly ratified appointees in charge; not a group of faculty members squabbling about tenure and saddled with service parochialisms...

What you propose is tantamount to saying that Harvard should should have responsibility for some government functions, say economic, fiscal and social policy...

I'm reminded of William Buckley once saying "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty."
I remember my small group instructor talking about one visiting professor who had been publishing some material outside the party lines like he was a pariah to be avoided.I think that might be judged dependent upon who it was an how far outside the party line on what topic. While I agree that exposure to different and even severely contrary views is desirable, there are or should be some limits if for no other reason than some possibles would be more disruptive than helpful...
I've always felt that the service colleges should be shapers of strategy, not followers, perhaps this lifting of the skirt will help promote change in that direction.I'll counter your hope by hoping not -- I'd rather see them concentrate on their job -- educating thinking officers. The Constitution works and I think we ought to use it more, not sidetrack it.

There are more than enough talking heads and would be strategic geniuses without adding the Colleges to the mix. Though their Professors should contribute to the opinions on strategic direction -- and my belief is that most do so and that all do not follow the party line to any, much less a great, extent. I've read a number of papers from all the senior Colleges over the last few years that take quite contrary positions on things.

selil
01-09-2009, 02:44 AM
I want to add a few things to Steve Blair's excellent analysis:

Academic freedom rights come in two flavors. The first flavor is the classroom. As a tenured university professor I have the intellectual and ideological freedom to express my own opinions about a topic as long as they are not against the university rules and are part of what the class is about. Yes I have to abide by rules so dropping the "F" bomb as punctuation would likely get me talked to. There is no credible reason in my classes to engage in that freedom. However, a colleague who teaches communication often plays the entire George Carlin "7" words you can't say on television for her class. The context is absolutely there.

I also have freedom to research. My research into cyber warfare as low intensity conflict is decidedly within the scope of information technology and information assurance and security. My research is detested and reviled by several colleagues who hate what I research. They loathe that I even have one friend or colleague within the department of defense. I truly believe everyone of them would stand up for my right to engage in my research agenda and support me. So much do they support me, I don't have to justify it, just do it with respect for their views.

You can tell that most of the people have been commenting in the open on other websites really don't know what academic freedom is and have not researched it. I find even in academia most people have no real idea what academic freedom is and where the principles of it come from.

For about 80 years the American Association of University Professors (http://www.aaup.org/) (AAUP) has worked to instantiate academic freedom as a corollary requirement to education accreditation. No academic freedom no accreditation of the University. Though a relatively low percentage of professors belong to AAUP from what I've seen AAUP has worked tirelessly to insure academic freedom exists.

The statement of academic freedom from AAUP



Academic Freedom (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/1940statement.htm)


Teachers are entitled to full freedom in research and in the publication of the results, subject to the adequate performance of their other academic duties; but research for pecuniary return should be based upon an understanding with the authorities of the institution.

Teachers are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subject, but they should be careful not to introduce into their teaching controversial matter which has no relation to their subject. Limitations of academic freedom because of religious or other aims of the institution should be clearly stated in writing at the time of the appointment.

College and university teachers are citizens, members of a learned profession, and officers of an educational institution. When they speak or write as citizens, they should be free from institutional censorship or discipline, but their special position in the community imposes special obligations. As scholars and educational officers, they should remember that the public may judge their profession and their institution by their utterances. Hence they should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that they are not speaking for the institution.




Like a lot of situations writers, pundits, and politicians have a tendency to only tell you the part of the case that helps them out. Here is where I say shame on Mr. Ricks. Everything claimed about Dr. Metz violating academic freedom is covered by the responsibility clause of academic freedom. If anything Dr. Metz should be applauded for restraint. For all those people making comments on blogs about academic freedom and their fully informed opinions as professionals I say shame. Their fully informed opinions are bankrupt.

Mr. Ricks and the taught strung less than informed professors hoisting Dr. Metz up likely have not reflected on the fact they are engaging in pillory of Dr. Metz for his respect to the full intent of academic freedom. He did not just selectively implement the rights without considering the responsibilities. Said another way, their choice, was not his choice, so they censure him. Ironic on many levels.

I have not seen the "blackball" email but from what Mr. Ricks, and Dr. Metz have said the letter basically was cautioning his fellow faculty, who Dr. Metz might have some responsibility towards, to be careful. From what I've seen the criticism of Dr. Metz has been an attack against the responsibility required by academic freedom. I however do not claim to be fully informed on what I don't know.

Like all truly important topics this is not an easy or simple topic. A lack of academic freedom got Socrates the hemlock tea. Academic freedom has been discussed extensively by academics, and legislatures. The vilification of the Army War College is an example of the stakes people will engage in to put their stamp on the issue. There is a substantial body of literature covering this topic if anybody is truly interested. I would start with AAUP (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/issues/AF/Resources.htm) and work towards the deeper literature.

If you want an in depth look at the idea of academic freedom and the military education system I strongly suggest you read this article, "Can Academic Freedom Work in Military Academies (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/academe/2007/JA/Feat/nida.htm)?" Like always the truth is a lot messier than a simplistic sensationalist headline by a pundit. Of course, research, thinking, consideration, and examination of the basic literature is a hallmark of the academe not the press.

Old Eagle
01-09-2009, 02:49 AM
AWC has published some extremely controversial pieces lately. In fact, I firmly believe that Dave Huntoon and his successor have pushed the Army to pretty broad limits of academic freedom.

Nasty bias on my part -- Tom Ricks is a journalist, responsible for selling newspapers; Steve Metz is an academician. They both play vital roles in our system, but we must view their contributions within those contexts. Neither is responsible for the development or execution of policy. Use what they produce positively, whether you agree with it or not.

Mark O'Neill
01-09-2009, 03:23 AM
I thought your explanation of Academic Freedom as understood / advocated by the AAUP offerred an appropriate context through which to analyse the claims made by both protagonists.

I will declare my bias toward's Steve's side. I am a government employee (serving Army officer ) detached to working at a Civilian Think Tank http://www.lowyinstitute.org. I think there definitely is a requirement to maintain a 'balanced' perspective out of due deference and respect to your 'position' , what it represents to observers, and the organisation that pays you. It has been my experience that most people understand that, and that it does not detract from being able to contribute.

I cannot imagine it being any different at the SSI, my experience of visiting there has been of wide ranging and open debate / discussion, not only with Steve but other Civilian Academics, Visiting Fellows and Military Officers on the faculty / staff. That said, I do not think that SSI and AWC is meant to (nor should they) replicate UCLA Berekley in the late 60s...

Cheers

Mark

SteveMetz
01-09-2009, 10:50 AM
Let me try and put this to rest. I believe two points are important.

First, the email that I sent to my colleagues in 2005 (which, I believe, was dredged up and sent to Tom Ricks by a disgruntled employee seeking to embarrass me) was NOT about academic freedom at the Army War College. It was about journalistic methods. Several of us had experiences with Tom where what we said was portrayed as more critical of the administration than we intended, or things written by individual War College authors were portrayed as official positions. I was attempting to draw that to the attention of my colleagues.

Was that a purely time and context specific problem? I noticed that Tom's Foreign Policy blog entry of 31 December is headlined, "The U.S. Army Speaks Up For Hamas." It was summarizing a recent publication by an Army War College professor that includes the following disclaimer on p. ii: "The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government" so everyone can decide on their own.

In Tom's blog, I see that his major source for the fact that there is an academic freedom problem at the Army War College is someone who was a guest speaker for a few days a couple of year ago. This fellow drew his conclusion from the comments of some unidentified people who came up to him during lunch.

I've been in the Professional Military Education system for nearly 23 years. I've been on the faculty at the Army War College for nearly 18 of those. In my opinion, academic freedom in PME is, by necessity, different than in a secular, civilian university, but it is robust and rigorous. I think that DoD and senior military leaders deserve great credit for allowing, even encouraging their employees to second guess and critique their decisions. I doubt few industries or even civilian universities would be equally open to that kind of free discourse.

So when it comes to academic freedom in PME, my personal opinion is that there's nothing to see here folks--let's move along and discuss issues that really need it.

120mm
01-09-2009, 12:11 PM
The system doesn't work that way and it absolutely should not. The boys in the Five Sided Funny Farm, regardless of talent and intellect, are responsible for strategic thought and effort -- in the military arena (the WH and State, rightly or wrongly, are responsible for the total strategy) -- the Colleges are not responsible for that but they do have the task of teaching folks how to think, not what to think and all have serving Officers in their heirarchy and said officers have primary responsibility to their service and to DoD, not to the nation.

The object is to have elected persons -- or their properly ratified appointees in charge; not a group of faculty members squabbling about tenure and saddled with service parochialisms...

What you propose is tantamount to saying that Harvard should should have responsibility for some government functions, say economic, fiscal and social policy...

I'm reminded of William Buckley once saying "I would rather be governed by the first 2000 names in the Boston phone book than by the Harvard faculty."I think that might be judged dependent upon who it was an how far outside the party line on what topic. While I agree that exposure to different and even severely contrary views is desirable, there are or should be some limits if for no other reason than some possibles would be more disruptive than helpful...I'll counter your hope by hoping not -- I'd rather see them concentrate on their job -- educating thinking officers. The Constitution works and I think we ought to use it more, not sidetrack it.

There are more than enough talking heads and would be strategic geniuses without adding the Colleges to the mix. Though their Professors should contribute to the opinions on strategic direction -- and my belief is that most do so and that all do not follow the party line to any, much less a great, extent. I've read a number of papers from all the senior Colleges over the last few years that take quite contrary positions on things.

I agree with Bob's World on this one. I think the STUDENTS should not only be driving the curriculum, but the students, who actually have recent and relevant experience in warfighting, should be shaping our country's warplans, not some 75 year old contractor in the CTD who's last military service was 40 years ago.

I am disgusted by the paternal, "I'll tell you what's good for you" mindset of the current PME system.

But we've had this discussion before.

John T. Fishel
01-09-2009, 01:30 PM
academic career. 15 years at a mid-level state university, adjunct at 5 private universities, adjunct at a community college, 5.5 years full time at CGSC plus Consulting Faculty status for 20 years, 8.5 years at NDU, and now 2.5 years at a major state university.

My experience has been that I have generally experience more freedom to pursue my professional interests both in the sense of fewer restraints and mor positive support in the PME institutions than in all the rest. The exceptions (negative and positive, respectively) to that statement come from one component within NDU under one Director - no longer there - and currently at the U. of Oklahoma. Generally, academic freedom in the PME institutions I've been associated with has been well respected in terms of the AAUP definition. In those terms, it has also been generally respected in the civilian insttuions. The positive support side is where both have fallen down in those cases where they did not meet the ideal. In civilian institutions there can be pressure to conform to a model of political correctness. Bob notes a similar "pressure" from his experience at AWC but it was one I never felt at either CGSC or NDU. I would also note that at American U - one of the most Liberal institutions in the country - the Dean of the AU School of International Service, Dr. Louis W. Goodman, made certain that PCitis did not reign and that all political pursuasions were treated with respect. I would say that the same attitude exists at OU and at CGSC, AWC/SSI, and NDU when I was there.

Cheers

JohnT

Bob's World
01-09-2009, 02:51 PM
To be clear, I was not aware of any external pressure, or even any internal pressure from MG Huntoon. What I sensed was more an institutional expectation and mindset, for lack of better terms. This is without a doubt a team of great Americans. Most are retired Colonels who made their way up through a very competitive military career field to command combat arms units at the Brigade level. They then have gone on to further dedicate their lives to the service of their country by picking up Ph.D.s and serving at the War College.

The fact is, though, you don't get to this point by being either a rebel or a major risk taker. The senior rater profile system attacks those traits with Darwin-like precision. You get where these guys are by being the very best at doing what the boss wants done. And that is how they see their mission. They may well be right.

While I respect Ken's insights, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. First, the Constitution does not come into play on this issue, so save that round for another fight. I've worked at the Pentagon, I've served on MACOM and Combatatant Command staffs, and too often the guys who should be thinking the most, just do not create the time to do just that. (see back to comments about how to be successful). But the guys at the Service Schools, armed with the ever refreshed perspectives of their students, have just that. I think it is a cop out to simply be an amplifier for putting out the party line. I think the Secretary and the Service Chiefs need to put these guys to work to challenge and shape strategy. Obviously any product is just input; and needs to then be sent to the decision makers to consider as to if they will use it or not.

But what happens when the party oriented senior civil leadership lets politics override the informed professional military positions of the uniformed community? At what point does duty require one to publicly challenge the boss? This is a tough moral courage issue that sadly comes up too often in the annals of history.

But we don't need a cadre of yes-men. My first loyalty is to the aforementioned Constitution. Then the people of the United States.

Sometimes you have to be willing to stand up for what is right, and be prepared to resign if necessary. I once worked as an AGR for a State where loyalty was defined as never challenging the TAG and supporting everything he did no matter what. When he decided that his relationship with an NCO, who happened to be the wife of one of his officers was more important than his duty to the state everyone looked the other way. I sat down with the IG and said this needs to be investigated. I learned that IGs can't touch TAGs, and they can only be disciplined by the Governor. So I resigned from my job and took a position with the largest District Attorney's office in the state, and left a Guard organization that I had come to love and respect tremendously to take a position in the Reserve. (That TAG ultimately was forced to resign, but the guy who leads the charge rarely is there to share in the victory on the objective)

Bottom line, I was raised to think freely, to serve proudly, and to never place myself in front of those I serve. Life isn't about not getting knocked down, and there are plenty who will knock you down for such sentiments. It is about getting back up. I've enjoyed two great follow-on careers (as a prosecutor, and back in the SOF community) that never would have happened if I had just been a good party man and looked the other way.

Rank amateur
01-09-2009, 03:44 PM
1. never put anything in an e-mail you wouldn't want forwarded to the person you are writing about, because sooner or later it probably will be forwarded to the person you're writing about.

2. I have nothing but respect for Dr. Metz. I do hope he will bless us with his presence more often.

3. I thought we were all going to buy a copy of Steve's book through a link at the site and then do the Oprah thing online. I'm still up for that if anyone else is.

Ken White
01-09-2009, 05:56 PM
I agree with Bob's World on this one. I think the STUDENTS should not only be driving the curriculum, but the students, who actually have recent and relevant experience in warfighting, should be shaping our country's warplans, not some 75 year old contractor in the CTD who's last military service was 40 years ago.That's fine -- and I do not disagree with you on the students shaping war plans but that's not what Bob's World said; he said "strategy." Not the same thing at all. I also agree with you on the contractors.
I am disgusted by the paternal, "I'll tell you what's good for you" mindset of the current PME system.Your prerogative though I doubt that said disgust has done or will do much to change that -- people will do people things...

I had the dubious distinction of attending several civilian institutions of higher learning, two State and two private in my brief and abandoned pursuit of a degree in Political Science. I went to four schools and abandoned that pursuit because I could not stand "I'll tell you what's good for you" mindset at ALL of those universities. People will do people things...
But we've had this discussion before.And may again. :D

From Bob's World:
"...While I respect Ken's insights, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.Not a problem.
First, the Constitution does not come into play on this issue, so save that round for another fight.Sure it does or else I wouldn't have mentioned it. The Executive Branch is responsible for the Foreign Policy and the Military efforts of the US as funded and more or less agreed by Congress. While the service colleges are part of the Executive Branch and should certainly have inputs to the development of strategy to execute the will of our elected leaders, those leaders and those they appoint to positions that by law are charged with the 'shaping of strategy' are the ones that should do just that. Diffuse the effort and you diffuse the responsibility -- committees do not make good decisions...

There's a chain of responsibility and you're advocating ignoring it?
I've worked at the Pentagon, I've served on MACOM and Combatatant Command staffs...So have I but I'm now retired so all I can do is offer sympathy for your pain. :D
and too often the guys who should be thinking the most, just do not create the time to do just that. (see back to comments about how to be successful)...I agree and often saw the same thing at the same level. Much of their lack of time in my observation came from their efforts at micromanaging things that they didn't even need to know about, much less be involved with and more came from their golf games and inclinations to do other things. Regardless of reasons, I agree your point that there are distractions is totally valid.
...But the guys at the Service Schools, armed with the ever refreshed perspectives of their students, have just that.Perhaps, I'm not sure but I suspect they have as many distractions as the folks in the echelons above reality.
I think it is a cop out to simply be an amplifier for putting out the party line.I agree with that but I am not at all sure what you suggest is the case.
I think the Secretary and the Service Chiefs need to put these guys to work to challenge and shape strategy. Obviously any product is just input; and needs to then be sent to the decision makers to consider as to if they will use it or not.(emphasis added / kw )Ah, so we do not disagree after all. Had you said that earlier, I would merely have pointed out that they in fact do that on a regular basis and that this study LINK (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB182.pdf) which was produced prior to the invasion of Iraq in an attempt to shape (provide input) to developing strategies was just what your addition to your earlier comment now advocates and with which I agree.

Or perhaps this LINK (http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=207) more current product aimed at doing the same thing? :eek:

I think the Colleges are doing their part -- I also think 120mm and Bob's World have a legitimate bone to pick with the folks in the Pentahooch on not paying attention to some inputs.

I also suspect all of us can agree with some inputs and disagree with others... :cool:

Bob's World
01-09-2009, 06:41 PM
Concur on who creates strategy. I have a team that is dying to produce strategy; and get quite frustrated when I remind them that at the Combatant Command level we are far more the consumer of strategy, rather than the producer.

Yet produce we must, but the real important big ideas, we wrap up real nice and share them with those who, if they do not produce the strategy that we must consume, at least have audiance and sway with the same. Its a slow game. But every now and then you see good things burble their way up to the top, and come back down for your further consumption.

Ken White
01-09-2009, 07:05 PM
Concur on who creates strategy. I have a team that is dying to produce strategy; and get quite frustrated when I remind them that at the Combatant Command level we are far more the consumer of strategy, rather than the producer.because when you're at that level, you know far more what's going on in your world than some clod in DC knows. The flip of that, naturally, is that said clod may know things you don't. No easy solution to that conundrum.
Yet produce we must, but the real important big ideas, we wrap up real nice and share them with those who, if they do not produce the strategy that we must consume, at least have audiance and sway with the same. Its a slow game. But every now and then you see good things burble their way up to the top, and come back down for your further consumption.Yep, shame that we can't just provide brilliance to those in power and have them bless it but they will insist that it be their idea -- so you've gotta flank 'em to get them to believe it is their idea. Heck of a way to run a railroad. :D

Come to think of it, aren't the railroads in trouble because they thought they were in the railroad business instead of the actual business they were in? :wry:

SteveMetz
01-11-2009, 02:48 PM
I think this discussion thread and most of the others sparked by Ricks' blog have missed the crucial point: it's about journalistic ethics, not academic freedom.

Specifically, should a reporter use a faculty member in the professional military educational system or a serving military officer as a cudgel against the administration if the opportunity presents itself? In my experience most (but not all) reporters recognize that academic freedom in the military educational system is important but fragile, and using faculty members as anti-administration cudgels can damage not only them personally, but also the acceptance of academic freedom by senior defense leaders.

Should the ethical standard be that the journalist is free to use anything said to him or her in any way they see fit and is under no moral obligation to consider the way their use of the words will effect the person who said them? If so, and people decide it's best not to speak to the journalist and communicate this to their friends and colleagues, does that constitute "blackballing" (assuming the person was only offering advice and not commanding people to avoid the journalist)?

Second, should a reporter portray something written in the professional educational system under the policy of academic freedom as the government position? To take one example, Tom's Foreign Policy blog entry of 31 December is headlined "The U.S. Army Speaks Up For Hamas." It was summarizing a recent publication by an Army War College professor that includes the following disclaimer on p. ii: "The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government." Is this within the confines of journalistic ethics? If not, could it potentially cause senior defense leaders to rethink their support for academic freedom at government educational institutions?

Ken White
01-11-2009, 03:43 PM
Journalistic ethics. That is IMO...

Those folks have lost the bubble, they're failing as a business case, TV or print, their credibility is totally shredded and they can't understand why.

Sad or scary, I'm unsure which. :confused:

Steve Metz said:
"In my experience most (but not all) reporters recognize that academic freedom in the military educational system is important but fragile, and using faculty members as anti-administration cudgels can damage not only them personally, but also the acceptance of academic freedom by senior defense leaders."That seems logical to me and would also seem to be something that a reporter would be loath to impugn for fear of losing or antagonizing some important sources who tend to agree with them on most issues...

As I say, those folks appear to be wandering about lost. :(

marct
01-11-2009, 03:47 PM
Hi Steve,


I think this discussion thread and most of the others sparked by Ricks' blog have missed the crucial point: it's about journalistic ethics, not academic freedom.

Absolutely bang on, Steve. What is interesting, for me at least, is that the ethical system is quite highly related to that of Anthropology since both journalists and anthropologists "report" on the people they interact with. The primary differences are in the assumed audience for that reporting, the genre of the reports and the assumed goal of the reporting.


Specifically, should a reporter use a faculty member in the professional military educational system or a serving military officer as a cudgel against the administration if the opportunity presents itself?

This is certainly something we have run into in our debates. In general, we assume that anything we say or write will be used by someone with a political ax to grind, and many of the AAA's ethical "guidelines" are designed to control our political use of what we find.


Should the ethical standard be that the journalist is free to use anything said to him or her in any way they see fit and is under no moral obligation to consider the way their use of the words will effect the person who said them? If so, and people decide it's best not to speak to the journalist and communicate this to their friends and colleagues, does that constitute "blackballing" (assuming the person was only offering advice and not commanding people to avoid the journalist)?

Technically, "blackballing" refers to the process of excluding a person from group membership. I don't really think that that is an accurate word to describe the events. Advising colleagues not to talk with someone as a result of past (mis)use of such discussion isn't blackballing - it's environmental information :wry:.


Second, should a reporter portray something written in the professional educational system under the policy of academic freedom as the government position?... Is this within the confines of journalistic ethics? If not, could it potentially cause senior defense leaders to rethink their support for academic freedom at government educational institutions?

In that instance, it's poor fact checking which, I believe, is contrary to journalistic ethics. Your final question is interesting, because I believe that it is a question that is purposefully not examined that much. I suspect that the assumed goal of reporting - the public "right to know" - is held as the end point in a chain of responsibility. I'd actually be very interested to know Tom's take on this.

Marc

Ken White
01-11-2009, 05:49 PM
Advising colleagues not to talk with someone as a result of past (mis)use of such discussion isn't blackballing - it's environmental information :wry:.not stated is whether the advice was a result of perceived intentional or inadvertent 'misuse' thus it appears that umbrage was perhaps unnecessarily taken...

SteveMetz
01-11-2009, 06:26 PM
not stated is whether the advice was a result of perceived intentional or inadvertent 'misuse' thus it appears that umbrage was perhaps unnecessarily taken...

The advice I gave was the result of a series of events spanning an extensive period of time. And, as suggested above, the use of the word "blackballed" in the blog was a distortion. No one in a position of authority said don't talk to Tom Ricks. It was me giving advice to a small group of colleagues. That doesn't fall within the normal use of the word "blackball" (although clearly the use of the word was more publicity generating than a more accurate portrayal would have been).

Ken White
01-11-2009, 06:38 PM
well. Leaves me with the impression that either Schmedlap or Mark O'Neill are correct above and / or that I am with the 'undue' umbrage remark -- emphasis on the undue...

As I tried to point out and as you said:
"So when it comes to academic freedom in PME, my personal opinion is that there's nothing to see here folks--let's move along and discuss issues that really need it."I also agree with Rank Amateur...

selil
01-11-2009, 08:06 PM
The advice I gave was the result of a series of events spanning an extensive period of time. And, as suggested above, the use of the word "blackballed" in the blog was a distortion. No one in a position of authority said don't talk to Tom Ricks. It was me giving advice to a small group of colleagues. That doesn't fall within the normal use of the word "blackball" (although clearly the use of the word was more publicity generating than a more accurate portrayal would have been).

I think Mr. Ricks has hurt his standing much more than you have Dr. Metz.

Those who feel negatively towards SSI likely always felt so, but it is unfortunate that this happened.

I have to admit that knowing somebody in SSI is sending out internal emails has made me reconsider ever taking PME position for sabbatical or scholar swap. I'm to much of a curmudgeon to deal with that kind of backstabbing behavior.

SteveMetz
01-15-2009, 11:18 AM
I have to admit that knowing somebody in SSI is sending out internal emails has made me reconsider ever taking PME position for sabbatical or scholar swap. I'm to much of a curmudgeon to deal with that kind of backstabbing behavior.

I do need to add that I believe this kind of adolescent, hostile pettiness is much less common in PME than in civilian academia. That's one of the reasons I left a university job for one in PME more than 20 years ago.

selil
01-15-2009, 02:20 PM
I do need to add that I believe this kind of adolescent, hostile pettiness is much less common in PME than in civilian academia. That's one of the reasons I left a university job for one in PME more than 20 years ago.

I'll take your word for it as the more experienced scholar. It is kind of a red-herring statement on my part as the chance a PME org would hire me are approaching zero. Ride safe.

Rank amateur
01-16-2009, 04:24 PM
I also agree with Rank Amateur...

Sorry I didn't respond sooner; it took me four days to get over the shock of reading the above.;)

I did want to point out that Mr Ricks gave Dr. Metz one hell of a blurb.

"This is a smart overview from one of our best strategic thinkers. Read it." --Thomas E. Ricks, author of FIASCO: The American Military

It is my understanding that blurbs are very important in the publishing world and given voluntarily. When someone goes above and beyond the call of duty to provide an excellent blurb it is understandable that a relatively minor incident could become emotional.

Ken White
01-16-2009, 05:45 PM
but your creative bent sometimes leads you off track just a tad... ;)

True also on the emotion bit, I suspect...

Bob's World
01-23-2009, 04:05 PM
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/strategic-collapse-at-the-army-war-college/#comment-190711

I had this related blog link sent to me today. I really have no comment as to the assessment of what is taught or who is allowed to teach at the AWC; I was however both amazed and disturbed by the perspective and tone of most of those who chose to weigh in on the issue. (Which of course provoked me to add my own 2 cents worth of commentary at the end)

Cavguy
01-23-2009, 04:17 PM
This is my favorite wingnut comment from that link - poor Steve Metz is actually trying to argue with those idiots.


43. fred:


google up Dr. Sherifa Zuhur and you will find that she APPEARS as a Westernized, secularized Arab. I think this woman is either deep cover for the Ummah or is a cultural Marxist hybrid straddling both the Western Left and her Islamic roots. She wears no hijab and certainly none of the required wardrobe associated with female modesty in the Muslim world.


"Deep Cover Ummah". I might have to use that. Sounds like a good band title.

I need RTK's tinfoil hat pic again.

William F. Owen
01-23-2009, 04:28 PM
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/strategic-collapse-at-the-army-war-college/#comment-190711


This article, to my mind, shows that the critics do not understand the subject matter they are criticising or the purpose to which it is ultimately put.

Studying Marx would not have helped one little bit, in understanding Soviet Doctrine, Operations or Strategy, - we actually know that it was a mistake to do so!

As a military officer, studying "Radical Islam" -what ever that is?- will not help you understand the Taliban.

marct
01-23-2009, 04:56 PM
Hi Wilf,


Studying Marx would not have helped one little bit, in understanding Soviet Doctrine, Operations or Strategy, - we actually know that it was a mistake to do so!

As a military officer, studying "Radical Islam" -what ever that is?- will not help you understand the Taliban.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. For me, the problem lies not with studying your opponents philosophy, etc., but for confusing that philosophy with its pragmatic applications in the field of conflict.

So, for example, studying Marx was useful since it would illuminate potential motivations amongst a target population, although junk for getting at Soviet perceptions (Russian history and culture is the basis of that...). In the same manner, studying "radical Islam" is useful for getting at motivations and logics, but studying Afghan culture and history will do a lot more for understanding operations.

Entropy
01-23-2009, 04:58 PM
That post and the comment thread afterward are like so many found on the internet these days. I applaud Dr. Metz for trying, but am not surprised that many remain unconvinced, prefering instead the conspiracy that suits their political or whatever bias.

The internet, sadly, is a great tool for reinforcing people's natural tendency to confirm their own biases, especially people without much capability for introspection.

Voodoun
01-23-2009, 05:03 PM
Hi Wilf,



I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. For me, the problem lies not with studying your opponents philosophy, etc., but for confusing that philosophy with its pragmatic applications in the field of conflict.

So, for example, studying Marx was useful since it would illuminate potential motivations amongst a target population, although junk for getting at Soviet perceptions (Russian history and culture is the basis of that...). In the same manner, studying "radical Islam" is useful for getting at motivations and logics, but studying Afghan culture and history will do a lot more for understanding operations.

Absolutely. Studying Islam, radical or not, will absolutely help one gain insights into the Taliban. Cultural fluency is critical if we're going to reshape the middle east.

RTK
01-23-2009, 05:12 PM
Studying Marx would not have helped one little bit, in understanding Soviet Doctrine, Operations or Strategy, - we actually know that it was a mistake to do so!

As a military officer, studying "Radical Islam" -what ever that is?- will not help you understand the Taliban.

I agree it won't help you understand their tactics. I disagree that it won't help you understand motivations, motives, impulses, and ideals. Knowing what the other person believes or doesn't believe pays huge dividends over a cup of chai.

William F. Owen
01-23-2009, 05:41 PM
Absolutely. Studying Islam, radical or not, will absolutely help one gain insights into the Taliban. Cultural fluency is critical if we're going to reshape the middle east.

OK, you may gain some insights, but are they useful, timely or relevant?
Why not just study the Taliban behaviour, as a matter or empirical record? That is how the vast majority of insurgencies have been defeated.

What is more, my understanding was that we are talking about the professional education of military officers, so their primary requirement is to be skilled in the application of force. The cultural insights they need are extremely context specific and part of pre-deployment training, not an education package at AWC.


MARCT I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. For me, the problem lies not with studying your opponents philosophy, etc., but for confusing that philosophy with its pragmatic applications in the field of conflict.

I can't see where we disagree. I concur. Having studied what is laughingly called "Soviet Operational Art," it was entirely a product of both insightful, and flawed, experimentation and operational analysis - which is why PU was re-written 3 times in 15 years. If you wanted to understand the Soviet Army, you read PU, stuff from the Rayzan/Frunze and some Isby, not the collected works of Lenin.

Bob's World
01-23-2009, 05:45 PM
Absolutely. Studying Islam, radical or not, will absolutely help one gain insights into the Taliban. Cultural fluency is critical if we're going to reshape the middle east.


Yikes! "Reshape the Middle East"??? And I thought the Intel guys were killing me with mission creep. :)

We certainly need to "Reshape our approach to the Middle East," but any efforts to reshape the actual populaces and governances there is likely not to be appreciated or effective; and lead to even greater depletion of U.S. Influence through futile efforts to get everyone else to simply conform to our wise and generous will.

Yes study Islam. Yes gain appreciation for the culture and concerns of the region. But don't then turn around and try to use that knowledge to exert your control over them. That's something "the bad guys" do, right?

Voodoun
01-23-2009, 05:46 PM
Our lack of understanding Japanese culture and religion had a negative affect on our ability to cope with their tactics didn't it? Is this different? if there's a wealth of information on how a group uses force, then certainly it is more relevant to study than something else, if all you're concerned with is force on force applications. no doubt.

In 2001 did we have a tactical study of Taliban methods?

William F. Owen
01-23-2009, 05:50 PM
I agree it won't help you understand their tactics. I disagree that it won't help you understand motivations, motives, impulses, and ideals. Knowing what the other person believes or doesn't believe pays huge dividends over a cup of chai.

Again concur. That is not something you need to go to AWC to learn, and you didn't need to "study Islam" to understand and use what you knew. Correct?

Voodoun
01-23-2009, 05:53 PM
Col Jones, right or wrong, reshaping the middle east has been a policy of the US for quite some time

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/kober-030325.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1421386/Democracy-in-Iraq-could-reshape-the-Middle-East.html

http://www.italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RS22053.pdf


De Opresso Liber - don't we reshape everytime we do just that?

RTK
01-23-2009, 05:54 PM
Again concur. That is not something you need to go to AWC to learn, and you didn't need to "study Islam" to understand and use what you knew. Correct?

Agree. It's as easy as listening to someone who's living in the culture or cracking the occassional book.

Again, I stand by the theory that dealing with people is the same in Jakarta as it is in Los Angeles - people want to be treated with dignity and respect. You don't need a class for that.

RTK
01-23-2009, 05:59 PM
Yikes! "Reshape the Middle East"??? And I thought the Intel guys were killing me with mission creep. :)

We certainly need to "Reshape our approach to the Middle East," but any efforts to reshape the actual populaces and governances there is likely not to be appreciated or effective; and lead to even greater depletion of U.S. Influence through futile efforts to get everyone else to simply conform to our wise and generous will.

Yes study Islam. Yes gain appreciation for the culture and concerns of the region. But don't then turn around and try to use that knowledge to exert your control over them. That's something "the bad guys" do, right?

COL Jones,

Completely unrelated question that perhaps COL Maxwell could weigh in on as well; Why have we been more successful in the Philippeans with our approach than we have in the Middle East?

William F. Owen
01-23-2009, 06:00 PM
Our lack of understanding Japanese culture and religion had a negative affect on our ability to cope with their tactics didn't it?
We (the British at least) has ample opportunity to study Japanese military culture, from the siege of Port Arthur onwards (where we had military observers). We just chose to ignore it. Slim defeated the Japanese in Burma, basically by understanding their logistics, far more than their military culture.


In 2001 did we have a tactical study of Taliban methods?
Well you should. There were many, many sources, considering it had not changed since the time of the Russians and the CIA assistance.

marct
01-23-2009, 06:03 PM
Hi Wilf,


OK, you may gain some insights, but are they useful, timely or relevant?
Why not just study the Taliban behaviour, as a matter or empirical record? That is how the vast majority of insurgencies have been defeated.

Hmmm, okay, I think this may be a terminology problem (aka, I forgot to unpack my brain :D).

Absolutely, the data for the study has to be Taliban behaviour and the Taliban "material artifacts" (e.g. night letters, propaganda, etc.). But the Taliban (and everyone) operates with certain un-voiced logics and assumptions which shape their behaviour and products, and these logics and assumptions are operationalized assuming a semantic network. Hmmm, this is getting more, not less, complex!

The logics and assumptions are primarily cultural, while the semantic network is "cultural" but, also, rooted in Islam as a whole (as an example, the laws of war are different between Pastunwali and Islam, and both have strong symbolic resonance).

So, if we want to understand, say, their inflitration / intimidation tactics, we look at their behaviour, try to figure out the patterns and then start looking at cultural myths and myth patterns contained in Islam. BTW, this is also the same process that is used in constructing both CA, IO and PSYOPS counter-propaganda (or it should be... :mad:).


What is more, my understanding was that we are talking about the professional education of military officers, so their primary requirement is to be skilled in the application of force. The cultural insights they need are extremely context specific and part of pre-deployment training, not an education package at AWC.

For the average NCO or junior officer, this really doesn't mean that much and getting into the analytic details would be somewhat ridiculous, at least at the level of required, formal PME. Where it is appropriate in the PME cycle is in things like a general discussion of narratives (which is one of the technical terms for this) and then giving a few examples while making more available if people want to get into it deeper.

You mentioned the primary requirement being the skilled application of force, and I don't disagree at all. The problem, however, is, to use an analogy, in figuring out where and how to apply the appropriate force to achieve the desired result (i.e. targeting and force selection). Now, the application of force assumes that that force will be "read" as a message; in effect, the type of force and target selection for force application is a "language". The real problem is the assumption that it is a universal language - it isn't - and this is where cultural logics and semantic networks come in.


I can't see where we disagree. I concur. Having studied what is laughingly called "Soviet Operational Art," it was entirely a product of both insightful, and flawed, experimentation and operational analysis - which is why PU was re-written 3 times in 15 years. If you wanted to understand the Soviet Army, you read PU, stuff from the Rayzan/Frunze and some Isby, not the collected works of Lenin.

Hey, when I was trying to get a handle on the Soviets (many, MANY years ago), I just read Russian history - worked wonders! :D

William F. Owen
01-23-2009, 06:10 PM
Now, the application of force assumes that that force will be "read" as a message; in effect, the type of force and target selection for force application is a "language". The real problem is the assumption that it is a universal language - it isn't - and this is where cultural logics and semantic networks come in.

... and, with reference to that type of force, will vary massively across both countries and cultures, so AWC is not the place to learn it. Pre-deployment training will be.

Cavguy
01-23-2009, 07:29 PM
101. tommyd:


This is a really informative thread, Thanks for all the great info.

Europe is for most purposes already in the can from what I can gather on the subject.

The U.S. is next.

With the incoming administration there is no way we can fight off the attack. Why do you think the rest of the world basically supported Obama?
Now that this has come to pass there will be no stopping the advancement of Islam. The Islamist now know they will have a much easier ride for at least the next 4 years. Does anyone really think the Obama administration will do much other than TALK…
That is exactly what the Islamist are counting on,
While the west TALKS and postures and takes comfort in being “PC” the Islamist are moving, building, expanding, fortifying their positions.
Fundamental Tactics,
They are on a War footing and the west is worried about what size their next flat panel T.V is going to be.
Face the facts, The Political class in the U.S. is brain dead. The citizenship for the most part is too decadent to see the tsunami coming square on.
Attention All Hands:
Stand by for Heavy Rolls.


Someone from PJ Media buy this guy a plane ticket to Prague, Budapest, or Berlin like Joe the plumber to look for the "lost" Europe living under Islamic law.

:eek:

Voodoun
01-23-2009, 07:41 PM
Europe's just "lost" period.

Although I agree that's a bit of a bizzare partisan sentiment, next time you feel up to it, read "War of Ideas" by Walid Phares. There's some pretty interesting insights into how the Islamists work. I would direct you straight to Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, but that's just a pain to read.

Cavguy
01-23-2009, 07:58 PM
Europe's just "lost" period.

Although I agree that's a bit of a bizzare partisan sentiment, next time you feel up to it, read "War of Ideas" by Walid Phares. There's some pretty interesting insights into how the Islamists work. I would direct you straight to Knights Under the Prophet's Banner, but that's just a pain to read.

I just can't buy into a giant Islamist conspiracy. (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=47652&postcount=18). Especially of the type the wingnuts on that site are talking about with "infiltrators" and "agents" emplaced throughout our government.

Most of the Muslims I have met in Europe have little desire to live under an Islamic state, hence why they live in Europe and not the ME.

davidbfpo
01-23-2009, 08:01 PM
Europe's just "lost" period.

Another myth gains momentum; China was "lost" to the communists, Vietnam was "lost" too and Weimar Germany was "stabbed in the back". Sounds very neat "lost" and IMHO is a shallow argument.

Yes demography says the Muslim population in Europe will increase, yes some of their views maybe different; this does not mean Europe's evolution is set in stone. The vast majority of Muslims do not follow the version of their faith that AQ, extremists and radicals advocate.

One could argue that the USA that the world has watched since 1945 has in the last decade dramatically changed. A smaller white / European population, a huge Spanish-speaking set of communities, not to overlook the Asians. No-one IHMO in Europe says the USA has been "lost".

A brief response.

davidbfpo

Voodoun
01-23-2009, 08:12 PM
When I say Europe is lost, I just mean its lost - those people are goofy as sin. The Germans are the worst - seriously, its like if you dont have a pee fetish you arent cool.


I don't know if there's much of a conspiracy, really, AQ and simliar groups have made their goals pretty clear.

So I grew up in a small neighborhood next door to a large Palestinian family. They're very religious, but no more than your average devout Baptist. The three families with kids in the area had 3 boys of similar age. We all grew up together, celebrating Christmas and Ramadan at eachother's houses.

The Arab family's extended relatives were always over, and on special occasions big trips to the local mosque would ensue, for birthdays and such. The Mosque was just a good sized house across from the University.

A couple years after 9/11 that Mosque was discovered to be part of terrorist financing network.

For years we thought the idea that the Soviets had agents in high levels of government was just McCarthyist claptrap. We now know that our entire counterintelligence apparatus was designed with the crucial assistance of an MI6 officer "Kim" Philby. Years later we discovered that Philby had been a Soviet Agent since he was at Cambridge.

I don't think Islamists have penetrated our security apparatus, no, but there is certainly something to be said for their clandestine capabilities.

Cavguy
01-23-2009, 08:15 PM
When I say Europe is lost, I just mean its lost - those people are goofy as sin. The Germans are the worst - seriously, its like if you dont have a pee fetish you arent cool.


I don't know if there's much of a conspiracy, really, AQ and simliar groups have made their goals pretty clear.

So I grew up in a small neighborhood next door to a large Palestinian family. They're very religious, but no more than your average devout Baptist. The three families with kids in the area had 3 boys of similar age. We all grew up together, celebrating Christmas and Ramadan at eachother's houses.

The Arab family's extended relatives were always over, and on special occasions big trips to the local mosque would ensue, for birthdays and such. The Mosque was just a good sized house across from the University.

A couple years after 9/11 that Mosque was discovered to be part of terrorist financing network.

For years we thought the idea that the Soviets had agents in high levels of government was just McCarthyist claptrap. We now know that our entire counterintelligence apparatus was designed with the crucial assistance of an MI6 officer "Kim" Philby. Years later we discovered that Philby had been a Soviet Agent since he was at Cambridge.

I don't think Islamists have penetrated our security apparatus, no, but there is certainly something to be said for their clandestine capabilities.

Let's assume your neighbors were in on the terrorist financing (which terrorists?), but how exactly are they going to bring down western civilization?

And AQ has nowhere near the resources or organization that the KGB did. Come on.

marct
01-23-2009, 08:17 PM
Hi Voodun,

Let me just pick up on this comment:


A couple years after 9/11 that Mosque was discovered to be part of terrorist financing network.

A fair number of "terrorist financing networks" came into existence because the groups that were involved in the fundraising were redefined as "terrorists". It would be like the "Christian Save the Children's Fund" suddenly be identified as a "terrorist" organization.

Voodoun
01-23-2009, 08:21 PM
My neighbors had nothing to do with it, they simply unwittingly tithed to a mosque that misdirected their money. The father of that family was a dedicated family man who came to America to marry the wife of his brother who already had 3 kids but had been shot and killed at the small corner store he ran.

Today the kids are HAMAS sympathizers and feel alienated by the US government.

Desire to bring down western civilization does not equal capability, and I didn't argue that they could do it. I was simply offering some insight.

I also never made any comparisons to the KGB's financing and AQ's financing.

I'm not saying AQ has the capacity to do what it wants to do.

But I will also point out that 50 years ago NO ONE would have thought that Turkey would have an Islamic party in power. 50 years ago the Lebanese would never have believed you if you told them that Christians would be a tiny minority.

Voodoun
01-23-2009, 08:23 PM
Hi Voodun,

Let me just pick up on this comment:



A fair number of "terrorist financing networks" came into existence because the groups that were involved in the fundraising were redefined as "terrorists". It would be like the "Christian Save the Children's Fund" suddenly be identified as a "terrorist" organization.
suddenly, for no reason? HAMAS, Hizballah, Muslim Brotherhood, these guys all have numerous charitable arms. Maybe I put too much faith in the FBI, but I assume they did their due diligence.

Bob's World
01-23-2009, 08:23 PM
Col Jones, right or wrong, reshaping the middle east has been a policy of the US for quite some time

http://www.cato.org/research/articles/kober-030325.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1421386/Democracy-in-Iraq-could-reshape-the-Middle-East.html

http://www.italy.usembassy.gov/pdf/other/RS22053.pdf


De Opresso Liber - don't we reshape everytime we do just that?

And now we grow nearer to the root of the problem! We have indeed made the shaping of the Middle East a central part of our foreign policy and engagement for some 65 years now. The first 45 of that were to wage the Cold War. The last 20 are what should be carefully reviewed and upgraded for the world we live in today.

If the people of the Middle East were primarily Hindu we would be facing a "radical Hindu" problem right now.

The question is, why are these people so upset, and why are they directing that in our general direction? Those who contribute it to differences of religion, or jealousy, or any one of another dozen favorites that get wheeled out to avoid taking any responsibility back on ourselves are why we are 8 years into this problem, with little headway to show for it. This is not to say it is our fault, for I am with the President here, and will not apologize. But recognizing ones responsibilities are a far cry from accepting blame for a complex problem that many factors have contributed to.

Cavguy
01-23-2009, 08:31 PM
My neighbors had nothing to do with it, they simply unwittingly tithed to a mosque that misdirected their money. The father of that family was a dedicated family man who came to America to marry the wife of his brother who already had 3 kids but had been shot and killed at the small corner store he ran.

Today the kids are HAMAS sympathizers and feel alienated by the US government.



I think my argument against this Islamists fear-mongering is made by your last point.

Why would those kids feel that way - because wingnuts like the ones I quoted have told them that they do not belong and are not welcome in western society, and are to be distrusted as potential AQIZ moles. Our worldwide "war against terror" is nearly universally seen in the muslim world as a "war against islam", no matter how we market it.

People tend to perform to society's expetations of them.

What we fail to realize is that our fear and actions are losing this war for us, and exposing the darker sides of America.

marct
01-23-2009, 08:33 PM
suddenly, for no reason? HAMAS, Hizballah, Muslim Brotherhood, these guys all have numerous charitable arms. Maybe I put too much faith in the FBI, but I assume they did their due diligence.

Oh, I didn't say for no reason :D. But, suddenly? Yup. Let me give you an example: in Canada, Hamas used to be a perfectly legal organization. This legal situation only changed after 9/11, so people who had supported Hamas financially, and there were a fair number here who did, all of a sudden found that they were supporting a "terrorist network".

I remember chatting with one of my students in 2002 about this. His university tuition, along with living expenses, were being paid for by Hamas which, BTW, he was quite open about. Now they had agreed to pay his university costs if he agreed to go back to Lebanon and do civil engineering for 4-5 years in some of the areas they controlled (which, BTW, he had grown up in).

Was he a terrorist? Not in my opinion at that time, but I wouldn't be surprised if he is still a Hamas supporter.

Bob's World
01-23-2009, 08:33 PM
COL Jones,

Completely unrelated question that perhaps COL Maxwell could weigh in on as well; Why have we been more successful in the Philippeans with our approach than we have in the Middle East?

In short, because in the Philippines we manage to mind our own business at the same time as we mind to our national interests.

In the Middle East, we made everything our business as well.

Examples:

In the Philippines, the HN conducts COIN and CT, the US conducts FID
In the Philippines there are no U.S. detainees, only Philippino detainees
In the Philippines there are no U.S. bases, only Philippino bases
In the Philippines, U.S. soldiers don't kill Philippinos, Philippino soldiers do
In the Philippines the U.S. was invited in by the HN, in the Middle East we invaded


This can go on and on. Clearly not all of this is applicable, but if I was going to summarize the one key difference it is that we tend to treat the Philippine populace more as we would treat the American Populace; but we do not extend that same respect to the Populaces of many of the places we engage elsewhere.

Voodoun
01-23-2009, 08:59 PM
Col Jones,

I was saying that if reshaping the middle east is our goal, then cultural fluency is necessary. I'm not making a right/wrong judgement on reshaping the middle east - I draw clear lines for myself on that sort of policy advocacy. My focus is on matching policy to goals, not determining the righteousness of goals. Maybe 20 years from now I'll get to that point, but right now I try to restrict my lane.

Cavguy - fear mongering conspiracy theory minded people on both sides of the political aisle are a big pet peeve of mine. I do think that you're not giving the Islamists enough agency here - US perceptions abroad and by first generation Americans (of which I am one) are not actively controlled by the USG or its actions. The propaganda efforts of Islamists, particularly Palestinians (who learned it from the secular Palestinian organizations being trained by the KGB) are AMAZING. Their harb al nafsiyah may be the most sophisticated and successful that the world has ever seen.

Aside from the Phares text, Ron Schliefer's Psychological Warfare in the Intifada: Israeli and Palestinian Media Politics and Military Strategies is a doozy.

As you can imagine, when I have conversations with my childhood friend, the talk usually turns to US policy, the military, etc. As an American, he believes no Jews died on 9/11. This is a college educated (computer science) businessman who tells me that bin Laden works for CIA, and was trained by them in Afghanistan. He tells me that the US has been stealing oil from Iraq. He tells me that Bush is being played by the Zionists (funny enough, like many American Arabs I meet, he seems to have a soft spot for Bush) who control Congress.

These are not perceptions logically deduced from US actions.

Voodoun
01-23-2009, 09:05 PM
Well I suppose 'suddenly' happens any time something goes from one category to another.

I don't know how many new organizations were added to the FTO list since 9/11 - lets look.

36 in 2004 vs 28 in 1999.

Of those 8 I'd have to dig deeper to find out how many existed before 2001.

Steve Blair
01-23-2009, 09:08 PM
I'd say this thread is straying a wee bit off course. The whole AWC thing seems to have played itself out, so what say we leave its bones and move on?

Ken White
01-23-2009, 09:50 PM
When I say Europe is lost, I just mean its lost - those people are goofy as sin. The Germans are the worst - seriously, its like if you dont have a pee fetish you arent cool.We have a number of foreign, including European and German, members and that comment was out of line. You said it, so no sense in trying to retract it or apologize but don't repeat the error.

Voodoun
01-23-2009, 09:59 PM
Ok, I wont make any more attempts at humorous jabs - nor did I realize that my PSYOP skills were being put to the test on an online bboard. Good to know, thanks. I'm on it.

William F. Owen
01-24-2009, 08:06 AM
These are not perceptions logically deduced from US actions.

... or delusions crafted from an ignorance that helps him justify his beliefs.