Recruiting for SWC members because....

[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.

[jcustis]

David, I'll second Old Eagle's comments and say your efforts have done immeasurable good here.

[Stan]

If I could have just 36 hours in a day to manage my interests and still hang onto a job

The old farts are still around and most do wander in as time permits.

Sufficient interesting topics, more than enough intelligent people from every walk of life, just not enough time.

My excuse

[TheCurmudgeon]

OK, first, I have had several beers, so my ramblings may be slightly more incoherent then they usually are, but I feel I must contribute. Right now we are in a funk. The Gentile's of the world are trying to convince everyone that small wars are no longer relevant. (to the theme song of the Beverly Hillbillies) "Near Peer competitors are just terrific, so they packed up their strategy and pivoted to the Pacific". Yeah, you go with that girl. As I heard Barrett say once: "China all grown up ... gonna be a looker." Here is the real deal. The next time troops will be put in harms way it will be in a small war. And if we don't do something about it, we will repeat the same mistakes we have in the past.

I for one am not willing to do that. With alcohol as my witness, I believe it is up to us to make this Journal into something that makes the news. I am not sure how, but I know why. I remember seeing a picture once that was entitled "the long grey line". It depicted West Point Cadets marching out of a fog. The representation was meant to demonstrate that there was a long history behind the Academy, but to me it was more generic (being an OCS type of guy). It represented the Soldiers past, present, and future. We will make the same mistakes again if those of us who have witnessed it first hand don't help find the answers.

To any of you still reading this rant, please, PLEASE, contribute to this journal. Even if you think you comments are not worthy. I asked for help with a project I was working on under the RFI section. I have over 1800 view, but only 47 posts (and half of those are mine). Come on people -- let us know what you think. Your opinion matters! That is why we fought the Germans at Pearl Harbor (sorry FUCHS).

OK, I am done now ...and I need another beer.

Please help keep this endeavor alive. It really is worth the effort.

The Curmudgeon (AKA LTC Stan Wiechnik)

[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?

[Bill Moore]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...r2606#overview

4% chance of getting past committee.
1% chance of being enacted.

This overall idea is far from new, I only posted the link above to provide "one" perspective on the possibility of it going anywhere.

The following link is more entertaining.

http://www.phibetaiota.net/2010/01/j...cy-operations/

“That proposal may be controversial in some circles — particularly in areas the development community, where there’s concern that USOCO might represent a more cumbersome bureaucratic structure. But Bowen’s idea is attracting some powerful allies, like the widely admired former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker. “I do support the concept,” Crocker, the incoming dean of the George Bush School of Government at Texas A&M University, emailed me. “The current situation requires a perpetual reinventing of wheels and a huge amount of effort by those trying to manage contingencies.”

Don't forget rice bowls (U.S. Dept of State and USAID).

http://www.state.gov/j/cso/releases/...013/206410.htm

GOAL #1. Make an impact in three or four places of strategic significance: In 2012, CSO focused 80 percent of its effort on four major engagements – Burma, Honduras, Kenya and Syria. CSO also worked in more than 15 other countries, including Afghanistan, Belize, the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of Congo, Libya, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and South Sudan.

Clearly an argument can be made that all these countries are so much better since CSO has intervened on their behalf; however, I can't make it.

It is a worthwhile topic to resurface, I realize OCO is a new proposal, but it is the same gal we talked about before. She is just wearing a different dress.

My two cents:

Cent one: If we're going to do it, we should of course endeavor to do it effectively.

Cent two: There is no clear linkage between doing reconstruction and stability in areas where the conflict is based on ethnic conflict. So even if we do it get right, which is doubtful, what will it accomplish? That is how I would frame the debate.

[jmm99]

My three or four cents worth.

My premise is that people post because of a combination (variable per person and per post) of (1) a desire to add value useful to others; and (2) self-interest.

Nothing about that is novel. Just over a century ago, James Malony Spaight, in his 1911 classic "War Rights on Land", pp.17-18, made both points:

Many causes are at the bottom of the general neglect of the study of war law. The time of officers is fairly well occupied, nowadays, in regimental duties and training work. They say, who know, that the British Army is a finer engine of war to-day than it has ever been. Most gladly and thankfully I accept that statement ; yet I am entirely and most sincerely convinced that one small, not unimportant, though neglected, part of the machinery needs oiling and attention. War law has never been presented to officers in an attractive form, as it might have been (I submit with diffidence) if the writers had insisted on the historical, human, and practical side rather than on the legal and theoretical one.

and:

... for an ambitious subaltern who wishes to be known vaguely as an author and, at the same time, not to be troubled with undue inquiry into the claim on which his title rests, there can be no better subject than the International Law of War. For it is a quasi-military subject in which no one, in the army or out of it, is very deeply interested, which everyone very contentedly takes on trust, and which may be written about without one person in ten thousand being able to tell whether the writing is adequate or not.

While I do post for Spaight's higher purpose (with emphasis I hope on the historical, human, and practical side, and staying away from the theoretical legal weeds), I also admit that I post for the fun of it - the dilettante subaltern at work.

This is strictly a personal preference, but I like SWC better than SWJ - the former being more fun to me. Others prefer to read and not post at all. Others prefer more academic articles and post to SWJ. Different strokes, etc.

And, for a lot of military people today, I expect that decompression is a more important project than being an author (dilettante or otherwise ).

BL: I intend to keep on trucking.

Regards

Mike