Input on forum organization?

[Bill Moore]

No issue with removing the Coalition speaks.

I really think it is time we deeply reorganize the site versus removing and adding a line here and there.

I think less big categories would be better. Some thoughts:

SWJ internal largely focused on admin issues.

Irregular Warfare broken into:

Stability Operations
Unconventional Warfare
Counterterrorism
Counter insurgency
Foreign Internal Defense

Somewhere we need to add a forum on the global commons (sea ways, cyber, space, etc.) because irregulars can challenge some of these areas now, and may even be able to challenge space in future.

Change GWOT other to just GWOT.

OEF-A
OEF-P
OEF-TS
Other

Transnational Crime

History

Strategy (hopefully we'll stop seeing sites focused on tactics being hijacked by those who keep blaming everything on strategy)

I agree we need a forum that welcomes non-military members to offer solutions to the problems associated with Small Wars, this includes law enforcement (local and federal and international), NGOs of all stripes, individual citizens (global), USAID members, Dept of Agriculture, etc. Normally they're not as thick skinned as Soldiers, so somehow they need to be allowed to post without getting swarmed on.

Based on recent posts, maybe we should offer a truth to power forum under OEF-A. Several posts from guys and gals on the front challenge the assumptions that we're doing COIN well. The recent UN report clearly points out that many of us our confusing our own propaganda with fact, and we sure as heck don't want decision makers confusing the facts with the narrative. Just wait, someone will jump out of the woodwork and explain we don't do propaganda.....

What's the difference between Small Wars Community of Interest and Small Wars Participants,....? Looks like two broad categories we can merge.

[HumanCOGRachel]

I agree that many foreign people post elsewhere, so it makes sense for the name to be changed, but I personally like a section dedicated to news about coalition/ally activities and news.

So perhaps change Coalition Speaks to: News & Notes about Coalition Efforts or something like that?

[davidbfpo]

From Rachel:

So perhaps change Coalition Speaks to: News & Notes about Coalition Efforts or something like that?

Perhaps given SWC is US-dominated 'We are not alone: Coalition Efforts'.

[Steve Blair]

Or in line with this idea: "International Efforts" or "International Perspectives"?

Just tossing it out there since a "coalition" is a rather vague thing that can shift over time and may actually exclude some perspectives if they aren't in the current framework.

[jcustis]

I think the therm "coalition" tends to have a militaristic cant to it as well. If that's the angle we aim for, then fine, but if not, I think we could use a different one.

[Bill Moore]

Add a section where we can discuss tactics from the insurgent and terrorist point of view. You can call it red cell if you like, but whether they're red or blue depends on the group and who they're fighting. Remember our friends in Afghanistan that were fighting the Soviets?

In all seriousness I think we have excessive discussion of our approach with minimal discussion on Taliban, AQ, anarchists in Italy, etc. approaches.

[Pete]

The revised forum should have an Officers and NCOs Club with a menu something like this!

[jcustis]

Add a section where we can discuss tactics from the insurgent and terrorist point of view. You can call it red cell if you like, but whether they're red or blue depends on the group and who they're fighting. Remember our friends in Afghanistan that were fighting the Soviets?

In all seriousness I think we have excessive discussion of our approach with minimal discussion on Taliban, AQ, anarchists in Italy, etc. approaches.

There are actual threads orienting on this in the Adversary/Threat forum. They aren't always the busiest topics.

[Steve Blair]

Add a section where we can discuss tactics from the insurgent and terrorist point of view. You can call it red cell if you like, but whether they're red or blue depends on the group and who they're fighting. Remember our friends in Afghanistan that were fighting the Soviets?

In all seriousness I think we have excessive discussion of our approach with minimal discussion on Taliban, AQ, anarchists in Italy, etc. approaches.

I agree, but those threads tend to get hijacked pretty quickly.

[Dayuhan]

I agree we need a forum that welcomes non-military members to offer solutions to the problems associated with Small Wars, this includes law enforcement (local and federal and international), NGOs of all stripes, individual citizens (global), USAID members, Dept of Agriculture, etc. Normally they're not as thick skinned as Soldiers, so somehow they need to be allowed to post without getting swarmed on.

Coming from the "individual citizens (global, thick-skinned)" perspective, I don't think it's really necessary to provide a sheltered zone for thin-skinned civilians. This is about the most civil place I've been on the internet, and anyone too thin-skinned to post here would make Casper Milquetoast look like Rambo.

Modifying structure to promote civilian input might be an option, if that's a goal, but I don't really see excessive abrasiveness as an obstacle to civilian participation. Certainly I've never felt that anyone from the .mil side has ever been excessively rough with me.

[jmm99]

did you ?

Originally Posted by Bill Moore
I agree we need a forum that welcomes non-military members to offer solutions to the problems associated with Small Wars, this includes law enforcement (local and federal and international), NGOs of all stripes, individual citizens (global), USAID members, Dept of Agriculture, etc. Normally they're not as thick skinned as Soldiers, so somehow they need to be allowed to post without getting swarmed on.

Everybody's arguments and assertions (including horse$h!t evidence) should be "swarmed on" - and done so big time. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

That "hunting license" BTW does not extend to ad hominem attacks - attack the argument or assertion; and not the person who in ignorance, passion or whatever, makes that argument or assertion.

We don't need or want 50 pullups for "military types" (some of whom make really dumb arguments or assertions) and 5 or less pullups for "non-military types" (however, you might define that; some of whom also make really dumb arguments or assertions).

Frankly, Moore, I'm being too harsh on you. This post is much more a reaction from having to deal with a$$ho!e, quibbling lawyers for the last 40+ years - most non-military; but, some were military, as to which I could give you some gems.

Regards (to both Bill and Steve - from the Armidillo):



Not my best photo, but what the hay (or hei, or hej).

Mike