...for the current crop of "spotlight theorists" at CNAS?
Printable View
Yes, I can. Spot on, Mon Colonel.. :D
COL Jones,
May I have permission to use that catchphrase? I am currently at SAMS and would like to tuck that brilliant insight into my intellectual kit bag for further use.
Regards
Ski
I always thought Marshall's stuff was far too sweeping, and that it flew in the face of many oral history accounts of actions (not just from World War II or Korea, either). It's good to see that his 'findings' are being questioned again.
In a two hour plus meeting, he reeked of phoniness to the extent of being annoying -- how the Army and his Newspaper missed that over many years, I have no idea...
My recollection of the Journal of Military History article mentioned above on SLAM was that SLAM happened to be helpful due to what the Army changed about its small unit tactics in Vietnam based on his WWII book and "interviews". Basically, he happened to be right, but for the wrong reasons.
Nevertheless, Roger Spiller, former CGSC prof wrote the RUSI article that I believe first outed SLAM's phoniness and the lack of evidence. To quote Roger, a historian I greatly respect and admire, "I have no use for the man."
I have a copy of Marshall's "Ambush and Bird" written in 1969. It's a basically a "Vietnam battle narrative" written for entertainment.
Now, if someone actually applied Marshall's alleged methods of research, there might be something gained.
Could not say it better. If you see Roger Spiller anytime in the near future, tell him I am a fan.Quote:
Nevertheless, Roger Spiller, former CGSC prof wrote the RUSI article that I believe first outed SLAM's phoniness and the lack of evidence. To quote Roger, a historian I greatly respect and admire, "I have no use for the man."
Hack's assessment rang fairly true in "About Face," but it was also clear that Hack didn't like/respect the guy and that rang through as well. So I always took it with a grain of salt. Never learned any great insights from those books I read. He tried to mix Ernie Pyle's "man of the soldiers" approach with one of also being a sage on military operations, and it never really worked IMO. I do have an original copy of Ernie's first book that I always enjoy breezing through.
As to my "Spotlight Theorists" phrase, feel free to use, so long as you can do so in the manner it was intended. Good people at CNAS, but when enough people keep telling you your s*%t doesn't stink, you can start to believe it. I think it is time to hold people to a stricter scrutiny.
I just flash to a conversation I had with the State-CT rep at the Embassy in Kuala Lumpur. The best I could tell his entire knowledge of COIN was contained in the two Kilcullen articles he kept waving in my face, quoting them like the holy scripture. They have a level of influence that is as dangerous as it is important, and need to be sure to remember that no one has a corner on "right" in this business.