Defining, shaping, and evolving definition(s) of spaces

[slapout9]

Slap and Bill,

I'm still working through Extrastatecraft - though I will share one of my initial thoughts. The author asserts that we should not only be concerned with the intended purpose of 'infrastructure' (it's mission, forms, etc) but also the actual consequences of it in practice. I think the applicability of her thoughts to military practice are to help provide coherent understanding of the military as an institution beyond its abstract political purpose. There have been a wave of reform proposals all couched in the same language of saving $$$ and/or improving the welfare of the soldier (true or not) and her framework may help excavate that.

But knowing how the institution of the military apparatus functions in practice underscores, in my opinion, the larger economic, political, and demographic pressures compelling change. The military, for example, is one of the last employers with a defined benefits retirement plan even with the emergence of the uber economy of independent contractors. The military's conception of 'discipline' and 'valor' are entrenched in 18th century norms - even as the operational environment increases the strategic effect and technical capability of the individual soldier and while distancing the operator from the point of violence. A recent Task and Purpose article (or maybe it was War on the Rocks) advocated adapting the service uniform to reflect not just the operational skills and deployments, but also soft skills and capabilities. We almost reflexively as an institution say that everything is subordinated to fighting and winning wars (i.e. the debate about women in combat arms), but any rigorous analysis reveals that's not accurate. Economic, political, and social norms and realities have as much, if not more, influence on the military than that abstract goal - and the military in turn influences them as well.

I will be the first to admit that my analysis of the military is not only concerned with 'fighting and winning the nation's wars' or the political object that, at theory at least, exists at the foundation of the armed forces; but also at the political and economic forces that influence and are influenced by the military. We cannot divorce the armed forces from society at large, even as there appears to grow cultural distance - the all volunteer expeditionary military is a consequence of a combination of political and economic conditions unique to this time and place and we should be careful about the entrenchment of military ideologies (I use the term ideology to denote devotion or belief in unchanging principles regardless of circumstances).

I think Easterling's work provides one possible framework for developing a bottom-up review of the military in this context.

AP, a uniform is very much a part of the Infrastructure that holds the Army togather, although people do not usually understand that, very observant on your part. In another post you talk about the Black Panthers and anybody that knows anything about the Panthers understands their infamous Black Beret as their symbol of unity.

[AmericanPride]

Slap - agreed on all points. Though I have this question: if the operational environment is a combination of cyber war, direct action, and nuclear deterrence, what function does the uniform have in modern war? As the Big Army returns to its garrisons, isn't the uniform just another self-licking ice cream cone?

[slapout9]

Slap - agreed on all points. Though I have this question: if the operational environment is a combination of cyber war, direct action, and nuclear deterrence, what function does the uniform have in modern war? As the Big Army returns to its garrisons, isn't the uniform just another self-licking ice cream cone?

AP, its a really good question. Martin Van Creveld has written that future uniforms may be nothing more than "arm bands". Not sure myself but as I said it is vary good question.

[AmericanPride]

I think there is something to be said about the uniform as 'infrastructure', as you stated, for internal consumption and organization.

[AmericanPride]

So - I finished the book. Although I would give it mediocre ratings at best, as I felt it could have been far more sophisticated in its analysis, I do think the analytical framework could be appropriated for political-security studies.

In particular, I think it could be use to guide a form of 'structural targeting' in COIN environment in which the state aims to manipulate/construct the underlying economic and social base of a given operational environment. This departs from the reactionary form of counter-terrorism targeting that aims to neutralize threats that have already manifested. The U.S. effort at 'clear-hold-build' or any of its derivatives was rather haphazard at best without any credible understanding of the political-economic structure informing the operational environment.

With a kind of 'structural targeting' the state aims to not only dominate and occupy space, but to actively define and shape it in a way conducive to its objectives. The Coalition did this unwittingly tactically - from checkpoints and counter-IED grates to building clinics and schools and establishing parliamentarian governments. None of these really served to alter the nature of power/conflict in the OE, but really to redirect the undercurrents of conflict in other directions; i.e. fueling sectarianism rather than mitigating it. That's because IMO the U.S. did not have a strategy to connect tactical operations with the political object.