The Military History Debate

[davidbfpo]

Prompted by the next post I have merged five threads that follow the same theme and re-opened the thread.

On a quick review there are other threads, but they do not readily fit here.

[davidbfpo]

From the UK Defence-in-Depth blog an article on 'History and Policy', prompted by the third term (semester) of an advanced course at the Defence Academy; in part explained in this passage:

One thing the students will be asked to consider is the relevance of history to contemporary policymakers. How, exactly, does a grasp of historical precedence inform decision-making in a useful sense? How does a knowledge of the past inform one’s understanding of the present, and the future? – particularly when the past is such an ideologically contested morass of rival interpretations. These debates strike to the heart of a debate of growing significance within the academic discipline of history itself – that of the utility of history to policy and to government.

Link:https://defenceindepth.co/2017/05/12/history-policy/

[Bill Moore]

Collectively we have turned military history into a pile of half-truthes that is selectively sourced to support a particular theory. While most embrace complexity theory, and that every situation is different, we prefer to contribute cause and effect to a particular doctrine. Military history, and some is, must be a multi-discipline study of history (political, social, economics, military, paramilitary, overall geopolitical globally, etc.) to more effectively determine what worked, what didn't, and why. I dread that future generations will embrace simplistic theories put forth on good governance, networks to fight networks, Nagl's COIN theory, principles of war that aren't, etc. as proven templates. While each simplistic theory has a place in the greater whole, they are all roads to failure if not integrated in the greater whole, and informed by understanding of the situation at hand. While much of military history is half-truths, at the end of the day history is still critically important, students just need to be leery of interpretation by over confident theorists and authors. In other words they need to be critical thinkers, which is what the purpose of higher learning is supposedly aimed at.