Recruiting for SWC members because....

[doyle]

So I guess this is the thread to make an entrance. Another non-military member here. I lurk quite often checking the news stories and the new posts for the information that is not mainstream and the background intelligence that does not always come to the surface. I've been a member for quite some time, but not a participant. My qualifications are nil other than a deep interest in strategic maneuvering and foreign policy. Being an Information Technology professional I enjoy the details but see myself as a big picture person. I love trying to sort out how the details, innuendo, and undercurrents guide and shape the big picture.

My regional interests these days are focused on the South/Central Asian states. I tend to lurk for a while to get the feel for the regular posters and flavor of the boadr before jumping in with my thoughts but I lookl forward to the jump here. There is a lot of knowledge and as I see it, one of the biggest benefits of this site comes from the real world experiences of the posters.

Now, on to that profile...

[Adam L]

Hi, another non-military guy here. Thanks for posting this. I really felt uncomfortable saying things before.

I just moved to the Albany, NY area from Calgary, AB where I have been for the past 5 or so years. I have been a history, especially military, buff since the age of 3. Although history has probably by far been my greatest passion the only area I think I have not taken to studying is botany. I have spent a great deal of my time working on several patents which unfortunately, due to financial qualifications, I have not been able to pursue as of now. I would like to say I am an amateur engineer, but alas I do not qualify. My main outlook about life is and has always been learn everything you can from whomever or whatever and to get used to the fact that there is always someone out there who knows more than you.

I stumbled across this site a few days ago and found it to be in line with my interests. I hope I can provide some meaningful contribution.

That said, I also find the high school sophomore foreign policy "expert" annoying, but at the same time it's interesting to see what they know, what they don't know, and what they THINK they know.

I utterly and thoroughly agree. I've felt the same way since I was in the 9th grade. LOL.

[davidbfpo]

I came across this thread by accident, but what Rob Thornton posted nearly six years ago remains relevant today.

From my position in the UK and being an "armchair" warrior I sense SWC is in the doldrums currently. As Ken White has posted perhaps the USA, where the vast majority of members come from, is "war weary" after two gruelling wars and no prospect of 'small wars' ending.

SWC appears of late to have a group of mainly retirees or civilians posting regularly. With the DoD plus undergoing cuts, perhaps there is an in-service perception it is best to have a low profile.

With the benefit of an exchange with an American member SWJ is still going strong, as a recognised quality outlet for articles. Note many SWJ articles are written - my perception - by non-members, which is not a problem.

Added later:There is no requirement for SWC members to announce who they are, some do so voluntarily and anonymity is an option.

[jcustis]

I was thinking of doldrums as well David. I've also taken note of the topics "guests" tend to view, and they are as broad and wide as is the issue of small wars.

Then we get to the Journal, where we see a very broad range of input and the authors are very happy to defend their work against critique and comment--in the comments section mostly. I read that as a belief that there is simply more personal value (to these guests) to have an article published in the Journal. That, or the current lack of peer review allows for a lower standard of critical thought and the investment of personal time is viewed as somehow worth effort, as compared to discussing said topic across 8 pages of SWC comments.

I instigated a remodel of the Council around 2007 if I remember correctly, and activity exploded as a result. Perhaps SWC is simply in a natural recession of sorts that has to compete with people's creative spare time in the Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram realms. I only use one of those formats (IG), and I can how that consumes time if I am not careful.

[gute]

Topics, topics, topics. For me the topics I have interest in seem to have been discussed and there is not much more to add. For example I find the topics in the trigger puller threads to be of interest, but you guys hit that stuff years ago. Personally, I don't find most of the other topics of much interest, not even the law enforcement stuff and I'm a cop (kind of).

I know some of the well known members quit visiting/participating because of the quality of participants (hopefully I'm not one of "those people") and the focus of the site, topics.

All I know is I greatly appreciate this site and the members who started it. This site is my Facebook, Twitter and IG all wrapped into one.

[Madhu]

I know some of the well known members quit visiting/participating because of the quality of participants (hopefully I'm not one of "those people") and the focus of the site, topics.

Yeah, I sorta got that vibe and I always hope I'm not one of "those people" too. I try and include links to academic papers to make up for it but what can you do? Not everyone will be interested in the same topics.

All great sites wax and wane, or simply wane after periods of intense interest. I can't think of one site I regularly visit that has the same traffic as in years past.

People get tired of social media, the time committment becomes too much, there is so much competition for eyeballs (look at War on the Rocks and the Infinity Journals), and specialist sites sometimes become overrun by people like me (sorry), outsiders that may ruin it a bit for specialists.

Regular commenters often want to start their own sites too which is the natural function of serial commenting, you start to imagine your own site dedicated to your own interests and with the sorts of participants you want.

[Old Eagle]

Thanks for resurrecting the thread, David.

I read a lot of the threads, but simply don't post as much as previously. Not sure why.

I would certainly like to see Rob, TomO and some of the old timers chime back in from time to time.

I find that folks outside any given discipline often bring new perspectives that we old dogs don't have.

I remain impressed with the overall quality of the forum, and thank the moderators for assisting to keep it that way.

[Bill Moore]

Topics, topics, topics. For me the topics I have interest in seem to have been discussed and there is not much more to add. For example I find the topics in the trigger puller threads to be of interest, but you guys hit that stuff years ago. Personally, I don't find most of the other topics of much interest, not even the law enforcement stuff and I'm a cop (kind of).

I know some of the well known members quit visiting/participating because of the quality of participants (hopefully I'm not one of "those people") and the focus of the site, topics.

All I know is I greatly appreciate this site and the members who started it. This site is my Facebook, Twitter and IG all wrapped into one.

It does seem we're often kicking a dead horse. I also agree with whoever wrote that the quality of the articles overall are going down, and if peer review was mandated SWJ would return to it original quality level articles. All too often we see long articles posted that are poorly articulated arguments to no discernible end. It is these authors that tend to be the most sensitive to critical reviews/comments. We also seemed to have morphed into two camps (those that are critical of COIN and those who are die hard supporters), which means we're about as dysfunctional as Congress when it comes to promoting balanced solutions for future defense policy designers.

Despite all the criticisms and the loss of some of our post valued participants it is still the most relevant blog on Small Wars and related topics that I have found.

[gute]

Despite all the criticisms and the loss of some of our post valued participants it is still the most relevant blog on Small Wars and related topics that I have found.

Absolutely agree 100% with the above quote and jcustis' remarks about David. Really, thank you to all the moderators who keep this site going and relevant.

[Morgan]

It does seem we're often kicking a dead horse. I also agree with whoever wrote that the quality of the articles overall are going down, and if peer review was mandated SWJ would return to it original quality level articles.

I, too, hope I'm not looked upon as one of "those people" that is less than qualified to add to the discussion on here.

As to the topics being discussed, while some have been discussed at length, some have barely been addressed.

For example I just ran across an article about a proposal to create a new agency....US Office of Contingency Operations. Apparently, Rep. Steve Stockman of Texas has put forth HR 2606 that advocates the creation of an agency that is designed to focus on stabilization & reconstruction operations instead of relying on ad-hoc relationships seen during the last 10+ years. I advocated something similar (Bureau of Strategic Assistance) in an earlier article. I think this proposal is a pretty good idea. Any takers on this new topic of discussion?