Military Totemism and its Impact on Small Wars

[Tom Odom]

Marc,

I will say that as a UN "moving target" in Lebanon I worked closely with Canadian officers for the first (not the last) time.

Bar none, there was no bigger morale issue for them than the Canadian forces decision --one later reversed--to go uni-service in uniforms because they felt they had lost their roots. PPLCI is a proud regiment and they did not enjoy looking the same as a Canadian air force pilot or a Canadian boat driver.

As for the US Army, we give lip service to the concept of regiments and we move flags and switch patches like traders at a flea market. That's why we keep inventing ribbons--the worst being in my experience, the Army service ribbon that says, "ta da" I am in the Army. The best decision I believe we have made on uniforms in the past 30 years was to go back to blues as service dress and formal dress. As for battlle dress, BDUs, Desert Cammies (chocolate chip, etc etc) and now DCUs it all gets rather silly.

Witness the use of velcro on a field uniform...

Tom

[marct]

Hi Tom,

Marc,

I will say that as a UN "moving target" in Lebanon I worked closely with Canadian officers for the first (not the last) time.

Bar none, there was no bigger morale issue for them than the Canadian forces decision --one later reversed--to go uni-service in uniforms because they felt they had lost their roots. PPLCI is a proud regiment and they did not enjoy looking the same as a Canadian air force pilot or a Canadian boat driver.

God! The "Jolly Green Jumper!" Sinclair Stevens, the minister who rammed that through, lost his bid for leadership of the Conservative Party as a result of that move.

I remember a friend of mine who was at the Nicosea airport in Cyprus when the Turks were launching their armoured strike. They invited a Turkish officer in to view the positions before any "accidents" could happen. The Turkish officer asked why, if the Canadians were there as part of the UN, they weren't wearing their Blue Berets (aka Blue Berries) but, rather, had on red berets. The reply was quite and simple "we won't die in those things!"

As for the US Army, we give lip service to the concept of regiments and we move flags and switch patches like traders at a flea market. That's why we keep inventing ribbons--the worst being in my experience, the Army service ribbon that says, "ta da" I am in the Army. The best decision I believe we have made on uniforms in the past 30 years was to go back to blues as service dress and formal dress. As for battlle dress, BDUs, Desert Cammies (chocolate chip, etc etc) and now DCUs it all gets rather silly.

Witness the use of velcro on a field uniform...

VELCRO?!?! Yeah Gods, that's nuts!

Most of the Canadian Regiments have managed to keep their regimental histories intact at least. My grandfather's regiment has both a unit "club", actually a private club, a library, etc. The other thing I've noted about a number of the Canadian Regiments, at least the pre-WWII ones, is their ties into the Masonic order. I think that that has helped keep the lineages alive during the Jolly Green Humper era <wry grin>.

Marc

[selil]

I have to ask. Has this trend reached the point where there are catalogs/advertising dedicated to -err -"fashion" for military professionals?

You obviously haven't seen a Gall's catalog. http://www.galls.com/

[selil]

Most of the Canadian Regiments have managed to keep their regimental histories intact at least. My grandfather's regiment has both a unit "club", actually a private club, a library, etc. The other thing I've noted about a number of the Canadian Regiments, at least the pre-WWII ones, is their ties into the Masonic order. I think that that has helped keep the lineages alive during the Jolly Green Humper era <wry grin>.

I was arguing with a US Military Academy professor a couple years back. I have a habit of doing that . We were talking and he said that the Quakers (pacifists) had never served in any wars. I told him that was wrong and the argument became heated. Of course any of the army guys who've been out to Ft. Carson in Colorado Springs have seen the statue to General Palmer on his Horse. He was a Quaker and led a regiment of Indiana Quakers in the Civil War.

From the discussion totems(ism) seem to be related to entrenched ideas where their validity is not necessarily related to the facts or reality of a situation. Like the kind Major I argued with his disrespect and mistrust of those who would not go to war was not balanced by the reality that a conscientious objector might be making selective informed moral decisions. The basis of the current ideas seem to enthrall and new information is rejected based on the preponderance of previous information rather than the validity of new information.

If totems(ism) is related more to familiar and emotion rather than reality and logic what would that say about managerial styles and choices made within the confines of that kind of thinking? When teaching we sometimes run across cognitive dissonance where the emotional appeal of an idea is much stronger than the logical reality of an idea. I've told my fellow faculty that there is a big difference between misperception and misconception.

[jcustis]

I think the Marines have this to a limited extent within some units (notably the components of the First Marine Division, though there is always that overarching "Marine" sense that can eclipse individual unit ties. The Navy tries (with some success) to duplicate this with ship ties and the continuation of squadron and carrier wing histories and traditions.

You're exactly right. I've spent my operational tours as an officer within the 1 MARDIV, and my preference would be to return there for the simple fact that it is what it is. For those who fought under Gen Mattis when he as the commanding general, many of them would probably tell you that if he said, "the enemy is at the bottom of this cliff, and I want you to jump off of it and kill them," they would do so unhesitatingly. It's an exaggeration, but that's the sense of bond he built within the unit.

In a Regimental system, reputation stands at the forefront, because you "came up through the ranks", and even if you leave for a stint elsewhere, upon your return there will be folks who remember you. I think that is empowering from a leadership standpoint, because subordinates have a better grasp of your background, capabilities, and past performance. If you were known to be good for your word and led well, subordinates will have more confidence in your orders to them, even if theyve yet to be tested in combat. I'd say this is dramatically so in formations like the Ranger Regiment and SFOD-D.

As for sigils, they are indeed powerful. The 3d Light Armored Recon Bn goes by the tactical callsign of "Wolfpack", and in OIF I, every vehicle bore a wolf's head on its turret, as well as a a symbol for its respective company. Folks knew who we were just from a quick glance, and our Marines tended to walk with a perceptible swagger.

[taillat]

As a french teacher in History and both officer in Troupes de Marine's Operational Reserve and student in political science, I would like to stress your attention about a book by Paul Edwards. It's title, Closed world. Computers and the politics of discourse in Cold War America, emphasizes a constructivist approach of technological discourse in military matters. Indeed, Edwards says that Computer (and cyborg alike) is a metaphor of a closed world (i.e. an horizontal world of individuals) built for a total control of men's society. In his point of view, technological discourse doesnt describe reality, rather it create it.In this case, social scientists and techno scientists, working for DoD through think tanks, created a military and social paradigm around computers and communication (the famous C4ISR in our times), ultimately leading to "national security state" as US national identity. Altough i think this position to be very excessive, I'm currently using it at a startpoint to work on a pre-thesis on urban warfare and its evolution through times. I don't believe the evolutionnist-technological discourse to be true, i.e. that warfare changes by a combination of technological innovations and economic structural changes (like for preindustrial wars, industrial wars of attrition, third generation wars and so on). My primary argument is that modifications occure by cultural means, whether from a normative discourse or an interactive one. For example, french victory in Valmy remains incomprehensible if one doesn't look at the cultural gap between Prussia and Revolutionnary France (a "professionnal army" relying on drill-training and tactical mastery vs "national army" whose strenght was ideological). This is what i labelled "the ontological asymetric law". In the last ten years, western armies were confronted with newly urban warfare against asymetric foe. The differential not only rely upon military capabilities, but upon cultural conceptions. In this perspective, studying what you named "totem" (in structuralist way) is as crucial to understand actual developments (and to predict future ones) than it is to understand war as a whole human activity, profoundly rooted in human nature. Technology in military thinking appears to me as a "totem" whose function is to cancel uncertainty and indecision as well as to conceal violence, death given and death received. In a further way, it allows to improve "cohesion" ("integration" in a durkheimian point of view) and creates collective and individual identities. At last, technology seems to me as a powerful tool to shape military society.
I hope i was clear (my english is "french-infected"). As an officer and a scholar, i pay a great attention to what is lived in frontline by your soldiers in Iraq. I feel concerned about this war (not condemning it) because it can teach us numerous things about warfare and warfighting in self-called "post-modern" and "post-heroic" societies.
Sous-lieutenant (r) St&#233;phane TAILLAT
Agr&#233;g&#233; de l'Universit&#233;
master sciences politiques s&#233;curit&#233; et relations internationales
IEP de Toulouse

[Tom Odom]

Merci bien, Stephane

Your English is better than my French to put it mildly. I taught military history at Ft Leavenworth for 3 years and served as a thesis advisor for some 5 or 6 officers in that time. Part of the process was the oral examinations at the end of the term for our thesis students. We used the same questions each year because we were seeking to confirm our students were approaching history in an analytical sense, not in an emprical, data memorization exercise.

A key question was always: explain the historical relationship between doctrine and technology, the classic which came first the chicken or the egg question. We would require students to support their analysis with historical examples; this did much to eliminate simple answers. But that said, it was interesting to me because my thesis students were often foreign, usually African or Arab and both groups tended to look at doctrine as being purely driven by technology. They did not see the linkage between doctrinal imperatives and their influence on technological developments. Simply stated they believed that greater complexity translated into greater capability.

I saw this same trend play out across the Middle East and much of Africa. Countries like Sudan had enormous graveyards on Soviet equipment and we were adding our own section to it (lesser numbers but better equipment ).

The single exception to it was in Rwanda where the new army first identified what it needed to do as a military force, organized itself to fight accordingly, and then sought the technology to achieve its desired end state.

My favorite example of this was during a survey of Rwandan military facilties we had already identified a need for patrol boats for Lake Kivu. And we went to look at the unit that had that responsibility along the Lake; the brigade commander became a good friend. But as we arrived, I noticed that he had several soldiers swimming in circles in what was quite cold water at the time. I asked him about it and he grinned as he said, "Colonel Tom, I wanted you to know I expect my soldiers to be able to swim before I give them a boat."

Best

Tom

[marct]

If totems(ism) is related more to familiar and emotion rather than reality and logic what would that say about managerial styles and choices made within the confines of that kind of thinking? When teaching we sometimes run across cognitive dissonance where the emotional appeal of an idea is much stronger than the logical reality of an idea. I've told my fellow faculty that there is a big difference between misperception and misconception.

I've had the same problems at times. I've also been caught doing it myself

Sure, totemism is more related to the "familiar" and the "emotional" but that doesn't say anything about the content. It is quite possible to make "constant change" part of the "familiar". It is also quite possible to embed logic and analysis into the content - the Dominicans and the Jesuits both did that.

Marc

[taillat]

Thanks Tom for your indulgence,
Teaching is a great adventure, whether it is in a violent suburb of Paris (those which burned last year) or for TRADOC (though for my part, i am now teaching to rural pupils in southwestern France, eating foie gras every time i want ).
When i was studying History, my teacher always said that one must understand historical events and men of the past through a comprehensive way. Today, my words would be the same: our ancestors are now as far from us as if they lived on Mars, but they were human beings. Thus is one able to understand them. But in the other way, one must study deeply their weltanschauung. Culture is a good startpoint to study History. I think this is true for now too.
The link between doctrines imperatives and technological innovations in warfare is an evidence to me. Furthermore, no true change in men's history can occur without mentality change. This assertion is a constructivist one. So, technology as a whole is an output of the structural change. However, there are invariants in human nature. So, these changes, whether we admit them as politicaly-oriented or neutraly-occured, occur in a familiar framework to us. I mean that doctrine itself is profoundly rooted in a civilisation. There would be exist civilisationnal way of warfare inside which technological approaches would be viewed in differents ways. For example, China invented gunpowder but was unable to use it efficiently before Europeans. What is really new today is the growing interplay between our way of warfare and that of other. My theory is that the constant acceleration of changes in western warfare are more caused by these interplay (because of the "ontological asymetry law" i defined in my first post) than by internal cultural change. In an other way, these internal changes have not disappeared: these are the results of our increasing belief in "science" (which is technoscience and not galilean science, i.e. natural philosophy) and the correlated trust in social and techno scientist (whom we believe to be able to find every solution to every problem). So, RAM would be the expression of subjective needs (cultural and/or social ones) and not only objectives needs (military). Precisely, military needs would be rooted themselves in cultural (or political in Edwards' view) needs and beliefs.
Best
Stéphane

[120mm]

Thanks for weighing in, Taillat. Good analysis, and my only difficulty in reading your posts was not your English, it is in translating your academic terminology.

It reminds me of how far I actually need to go before I am ready to make the next step.

I don't think that military technology "transforms" anything. Even crazy stuff like "cloaking" technology is just a different kind of shield. And pulse-lasers are just a new form of bow and arrow.

On lineage: 15 years ago, I built a military museum on Schweinfurt's "Conn Barracks" dedicated to the 4th Cavalry. It included several static vehicles, and one working half-track, a very large mural depicting the battles of the regiment, and a hall with a collection of militaria, including the punch bowl, which we had to have forcibly removed from a midwestern museum which acquired it from an illicit source.

I discovered a couple of months ago, that the unit there had been reflagged as the 1-91 CAV in the RSTA process. Quite a disappointment, but hardly surprising.

Totems aren't necessarily a "bad" thing. For a country which desires a symbolic military, it is important to understand what "symbols" will satisfy it. Knowing that could quite possibly allow political/military figures to acquire the appropriate symbols and get down to the more serious issue of actual defense. If buying "hollow" M1A2s makes Egypt feel better about itself, and as long as the price is affordable, good for them. Iran is particularly infamous for "viz-modding" it's equipment to make it look more "high-tech" and "Western". The cost of putting a tail section on an F5 to make it look like an F-22 cannot be that high, and welding sheetmetal on an M60 to make it look like an M1 makes the Iranian public feel more pride in their country's military, that is okay, too. Unless some politician gets it in his head that the "looks" equate to capability and then decides to go use it..

Smithsonian Institute is sponsoring a conference next July/August in Copenhagen on this very subject. I've been asked to submit, but like I said earlier in the post, I do not have the horsepower, academically, yet.

[Steve Blair]

You worked on the 1/4 Cav museum, 120mm? I did some time working for the museum at Ft Riley and heard a few things about the "illicit source" for that punchbowl (among other things).

Personally I think that reflagging is one of the dumbest things that the army does. For some reason they seem to assume that lineage and heritage is something that you can pack in a truck and move from place to place without regard for the PEOPLE who have to buy into that lineage in order to make it work. I would put some of this on a personnel system that doesn't leave officers in place long enough for some of them to get a handle on the whole idea of unit spirit, let alone what goes into it. The 1/4 Cav has been blessed over the years with a number of commanders who DO understand this idea, and I can bet that many of them were not in the least happy about this whole reflagging idea.

[marct]

Hi Stéphane,

Welcome aboard .

The link between doctrines imperatives and technological innovations in warfare is an evidence to me. Furthermore, no true change in men's history can occur without mentality change. This assertion is a constructivist one. So, technology as a whole is an output of the structural change.

Interesting assertions. While I am a social constructionist in some senses, I don't think I'd go quite this far - more along the lines of technological "production" (including invention and innovation) being conditioned but not determined by structural conditions and vectors. I would certainly agree that most technological adoptions are strongly determined by structural conditions, while also arguing that how they are employed is also so determined. A good example of this is the early deployment of the telephone which, when first installed in Vienna, was used as the equivalent of a community centre or bulletin board and was only changed to the individualist model we now use after three years.

However, there are invariants in human nature. So, these changes, whether we admit them as politicaly-oriented or neutraly-occured, occur in a familiar framework to us. I mean that doctrine itself is profoundly rooted in a civilisation.

The Husserl/Scutz/Luckmann argument? Hmmm, I was never that much of a Calvinist <wry grin>. I do like the term "rooted", and I agree that specific doctrines arise out of soci-cultural and historical roots but I'm enough of a believer in "free will" to argue that it is possible to change interpretive schemas. I think my position comes out of a belief that some individuals are capable of transcenfing their immediate "civilization" (habitus to use Bourdieu's term).

There would be exist civilisationnal way of warfare inside which technological approaches would be viewed in differents ways. For example, China invented gunpowder but was unable to use it efficiently before Europeans. What is really new today is the growing interplay between our way of warfare and that of other. My theory is that the constant acceleration of changes in western warfare are more caused by these interplay (because of the "ontological asymetry law" i defined in my first post) than by internal cultural change.

You could be right . Personally, I think there is more of an interactive feedback loop going on that sometimes reinforces while at other times destablizes the cultural schemas. For example, the French invasion of Italy in 1495 totally destabilized the entire social milleau of the Italian states and started a new discourse on the development of professional citizen armies.

In an other way, these internal changes have not disappeared: these are the results of our increasing belief in "science" (which is technoscience and not galilean science, i.e. natural philosophy) and the correlated trust in social and techno scientist (whom we believe to be able to find every solution to every problem). So, RAM would be the expression of subjective needs (cultural and/or social ones) and not only objectives needs (military). Precisely, military needs would be rooted themselves in cultural (or political in Edwards' view) needs and beliefs.

I think that a discussion of how science has replaced religion in the social role of provider of salvation would go well beyond the word limit allowed here .

Actually, I've been looking at that link pretty closely in North America in the context of the rise of the new religious movements. One of the things I found that truly fascinated me was that there was more of a "scientific" mindset, in the natural philosophy sense of the term, amongst modern witches and magicians than there was amongst more first year undergraduates <wry grin>.

Marc

[slapout9]

Do you think this is coming from the concept of a modular force where they think they can just plug and play units, without regard to unit morale and cohesion?

[Steve Blair]

I think it predates that, actually, slapout. I would take it back to Root's changes in the personnel system around the turn of the 20th century as well as the expansion that we undertook for both world wars. Root's changes created the trend toward modular manning (individual replacements and the generalist officer) that we see now, and the expansion for both world wars saw men shuffled around as cadre and filler for new units as they were created. Someone also figured out that it's "cheaper" to move a flag rather than an entire unit when it comes time for station changes and the like.

There were certainly some downsides to the regimental system as it was practiced by the Army prior to 1900 (an ossified promotion system was one of its biggest downfalls). I'm not sure, though, that the new system is much better. What we gain in flexibility and supposedly more skilled officers (although I'm not a huge fan of either "up or out" or "generalist" officers who are incompetent or at best semi-skilled in a number of areas but really knowledgeable in none) we more than offset by a loss in unit cohesion and tradition that can serve as a good service totem for our troops.

[Tom Odom]

Smithsonian Institute is sponsoring a conference next July/August in Copenhagen on this very subject. I've been asked to submit, but like I said earlier in the post, I do not have the horsepower, academically, yet.

There is "horsepower" and there is "horsepower." Doctorates are great things and deserve respect. Experience is also a great thing and a combination of academia and experience is hard to beat.

If a "learned" audience is unable to grasp ideas you may have to offer, I repeat Mama Gump's rule in reverse, "Stupid does because Stupid is," because they may be learned but they remain stupid.

In sum don't sell yourself short. I do not have a doctorate; I have 2 masters and they served me well. I don't dismiss the effort or the recognition deserved for a doctorate. Most doctorates in my fields of specialization don't have my experience and many in my experience feel somewhat threatened by it. I first ran into this early in my time in the history department at Leavenworth when I set out to write an LP. The nay-sayers were the insecure PhDs; I was eating from their rice bowls. My biggest supporters were PhDs who mentored and challenged me to produce something worthwhile. They also produced; the nay sayers never have to this day.

Best

Tom

[Steve Blair]

There is "horsepower" and there is "horsepower." Doctorates are great things and deserve respect. Experience is also a great thing and a combination of academia and experience is hard to beat.

If a "learned" audience is unable to grasp ideas you may have to offer, I repeat Mama Gump's rule in reverse, "Stupid does because Stupid is," because they may be learned but they remain stupid.

In sum don't sell yourself short. I do not have a doctorate; I have 2 masters and they served me well. I don't dismiss the effort or the recognition deserved for a doctorate. Most doctorates in my fields of specialization don't have my experience and many in my experience feel somewhat threatened by it. I first ran into this early in my time in the history department at Leavenworth when I set out to write an LP. The nay-sayers were the insecure PhDs; I was eating from their rice bowls. My biggest supporters were PhDs who mentored and challenged me to produce something worthwhile. They also produced; the nay sayers never have to this day.

Best

Tom

Agree completely, Tom. Simply because people know the names for some high-powered theories doesn't mean that they have "horsepower." They may just have the ability to remember those names. I'd say go ahead with a submission, 120mm. If nothing else you'll learn something from the experience, and that's invaluable.

[marct]

Hi 120mm,

Let me second Tom's comments.

In sum don't sell yourself short. I do not have a doctorate; I have 2 masters and they served me well. I don't dismiss the effort or the recognition deserved for a doctorate. Most doctorates in my fields of specialization don't have my experience and many in my experience feel somewhat threatened by it.....

Okay, I do have a doctorate, but that just means that I have first hand experience in how mind numbing the process can be and how locked into jargon some Ph.D.'s can be.

Let me give you some advice I give my students:

1. Everyone is ignorant about most things: There is so muuch "knowledge" available that nobody can possibly know everything. So waht, we all have our failings, the key question is whether we admit our ignorance in areas that are important to us and ask for help. "I am the wisest man I know, for I know I know nothing" Socrates.
2. Nobody writes alone: one of the biggest myths in academia is that of the lone scholar producing brilliant work (preferably in a comfortable garret; ideally with a bottle of claret or brandy). Bull. Every academic that I have any respect for talks their ideas out with their friends, colleagues, students, family, etc. (my wife hates it when I do this, but she does put up with it). It is also really common to send out drafts of papers for comments, critiques, advice, etc.

So, given this, if you want to present a paper, don't you think it might be a nice idea to post a draft here and let your friends comment on it? Hmm? Think of the people who are on this council: what a fantastic group in terms of both experience and academic "horsepower".

Marc

[120mm]

You worked on the 1/4 Cav museum, 120mm? I did some time working for the museum at Ft Riley and heard a few things about the "illicit source" for that punchbowl (among other things).

Personally I think that reflagging is one of the dumbest things that the army does. For some reason they seem to assume that lineage and heritage is something that you can pack in a truck and move from place to place without regard for the PEOPLE who have to buy into that lineage in order to make it work. I would put some of this on a personnel system that doesn't leave officers in place long enough for some of them to get a handle on the whole idea of unit spirit, let alone what goes into it. The 1/4 Cav has been blessed over the years with a number of commanders who DO understand this idea, and I can bet that many of them were not in the least happy about this whole reflagging idea.

It started as a 4-4 CAV museum. Then we reflagged to 3-4 CAV. I left prior to the 1-4 CAV iteration.

Frankly, 3-4 CAV was the fun one. They are one of the most historic Battalion-sized units in the US army. The color-bearer had to be a great big ape to carry all the battle streamers, esp. in a high wind.

[120mm]

Hi 120mm,

Let me second Tom's comments.



Okay, I do have a doctorate, but that just means that I have first hand experience in how mind numbing the process can be and how locked into jargon some Ph.D.'s can be.

Let me give you some advice I give my students:

1. Everyone is ignorant about most things: There is so muuch "knowledge" available that nobody can possibly know everything. So waht, we all have our failings, the key question is whether we admit our ignorance in areas that are important to us and ask for help. "I am the wisest man I know, for I know I know nothing" Socrates.
2. Nobody writes alone: one of the biggest myths in academia is that of the lone scholar producing brilliant work (preferably in a comfortable garret; ideally with a bottle of claret or brandy). Bull. Every academic that I have any respect for talks their ideas out with their friends, colleagues, students, family, etc. (my wife hates it when I do this, but she does put up with it). It is also really common to send out drafts of papers for comments, critiques, advice, etc.

So, given this, if you want to present a paper, don't you think it might be a nice idea to post a draft here and let your friends comment on it? Hmm? Think of the people who are on this council: what a fantastic group in terms of both experience and academic "horsepower".

Marc

I need 300 words by Dec 31st. Let me find the symposium announcement and some ideas I've had. If I don't "chicken out" first.

[120mm]

Social History of Military Technology at ICOHTEC
Location: Denmark
Call for Papers Date: 2006-12-31
Date Submitted: 2006-10-25
Announcement ID: 153420

We are again organizing a symposium on “The Social History of Military Technology” for ICOHTEC 2007, the annual meeting of the International Congress of the History of Technology in Copenhagen (Denmark), 14–18 August 2007. This new effort follows the highly
successful military technology symposium at ICOHTEC 2006 in Leicester. For more information on ICOHTEC, see the organization’s homepage: <http://www.icohtec.org/> For more on the Copenhagen meeting, see below. The history of military technology has usually been conceived in terms of weaponry, warships, fortifications, or other physical manifestations of warfare, with emphasis usually on their construction and workings. It has also assumed a strictly utilitarian basis for military technological invention and innovation. However indispensable such approaches may be, they largely ignore some very important questions. What is the context of social values, attitudes, and interests that shape and support (or oppose) these technologies? What is the structure of gender, race, and class, to say nothing of other aspects of the social order, in which military technology exists and changes? Or, more generally: How do social and cultural environments, within the military itself or in the larger society, influence military technological change? and, How does military technological change affect society? For this symposium, we propose to cast a wide net, taking a very broad view of technology that encompasses toys as well as weapons, ideas as well as hardware, organization as well as materiel. We seek papers that range widely in time and space to explore how social class, race, gender, culture, economics, and/or other extra-military factors have influenced the invention, r&d, diffusion, or use of weapons or other military technologies, and/or how such
technologies have reshaped society and culture. Your proposal should include: (1) your name and email address, (2) a short descriptive title, (3) a concise statement of your thesis, (4) a brief discussion of your sources, and (5) a summary of your major conclusions. In preparing your paper, remember that presentations are not full-length articles. You will have no more than 20 minutes to speak, which is roughly equivalent to 8 double-spaced typed pages. Contributors are encouraged to submit full-length versions of their papers after the conference for consideration by ICOHTEC’s journal ICON. Proposals, preferably electronic, must reach the
organizers no later than 31 December 2006. Please send all proposals to: Bart Hacker: <hackerb@si.edu> We will submit all material in a single proposal, so you need not register your abstract separately. For further details on the Copenhagen meeting, see the
ICOHTEC 2007 homepage: http://www.icohtec2007.dk/

Bart Hacker
NMAH-4013
Smithsonian Insitution
Phone: (202) 633-3924
Email: hackerb@si.edu
Visit the website at http://www.icohtec2007.dk/

One of the first ideas that pops into my mind, is how the concept of "elite" and "special forces" lends a certain machismo to those who practice the trade. I could explore how those within the various elite military communities use "combat fashion" to reinforce these ideas (to include the Special Forces "Truths".) I could also explore how others imitate the "combat fashion" to borrow their mystique; how both children and adults pose as SF in gameplay (airsoft and paintball) and how adults "pose" as SF personnel, even those adults with legitimate military careers, as well as those who have never been in the military, to the point of breaking the law in order to be mistaken as a SF "operator."

I would also love to do a piece on modern Russian R&D/marketing of their military technology. As I stated earlier, I believe that some Russian combat equipment is fatally flawed in modern combat terms, but they persist in attempting to build and sell the best "kitchen toilet" in the world. And, amazingly, some countries are actually buying them....

Unfortunately, I do not know if I have the time and resources to do that one. References would be tough, I fear.