Recruiting for SWC members because....

[Bill Moore]

I hope the community doesn't feel OIF and OEF are the only small wars in the world worthy of discussion and study. I realize they're the only small wars that we recently sent thousands of troops of to, so it is only natural that there may be members and viewers from the U.S. and elsewhere that will visit less frequently or leave the community altogether. On the other hand, since OIF and OEF-A were deeply flawed from a policy stand point, so deeply flawed they were abberrations in the study of small wars, it will be good news for the study of small wars when they pass into history. Africa, Central Asia, S. Asia, SE Asia are teeming with small wars that our media doesn't cover, which is why it is important we attempt to increase the number of contributions from non-U.S. writers and participants. I think we probably have chased some off with our biases, especially the general bias towards the approach to small wars that has been propagated in FM 3-24. I have yet to see an article from a Thailand security force that discusses their small war in Southern Thailand, or their successful COIN operation against a communist insurgency in the 70s. There is amble room for African authors to contribute. Fortunately we're seeing articles from members who served in India's security forces, but it would be nice to see the same from Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. There are plenty of other forums that address events in the world outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, but even those topics should remain of interest to professionals as their conflicts evolve over time.

I agree that membership will downsize, but I don't think and strongly hope the site doesn't fade away. It is too important, it is a great forum to exchange ideas, and have your ideas challenged in a forum that you'll never find in any of our professional institutions.

[MikeF]

We are only constrained by what authors submit.

Encourage others to send in submissions to submit@smallwarsjournal.com or mike@smallwarsjournal.com

[selil]

Small Wars Journal/Council has been invaluable in helping me modify and codify strategies for cyber warfare. I do fear that the "lessons learned" will be lost.

[jcustis]

Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgement.

I saw this adage just this morning before checking here, and we do stand a lot to lose if the hard-won experience isn't memorialized for others to draw from in the future, and we don't change with the changing world. I do not, however, think the future is necessarily bleak as OIF ends and OEF begins to wind down. Plenty of new challenges, but not bleak.

With the respective surges in either conflict, we also saw a surge in silliness, or rather a few people who came here with it in their head that they were going to see their avatar or name memorialized with a provocative article or string of posts that advanced their slanted agenda. I suppose we all have an agenda, but I hope that illustrates my point that there has been a signal-to-noise ratio that hopefully tilts towards more signal in the future. Down-sizing and refocus can very much be good things.

I can't remember exactly when it happened, but I made the recommendation to restructure the board to accommodate Iraq and Afghanistan (and other OEF hotspots) in greater detail, and that led to the structure you see in the Council right now. Other good restructuring came over time and across changes in servers, and I think we'll see other changes down the road as things morph and change for the better.

Specific interest will wane across some topics, and some forums may experience a virtual "death", but I'm confident there will be interest in all things small wars for as long as we fail to resolve our differences and interests through peaceful, constructive means.

To the specific question, we can keep the Council and Journal relevant by:

1) Sharing the Small Wars empire with folks may not have heard about the valuable content we have here. If we participate in other forums, linking in to content here can be the initial spark.

2) Submitting articles ourselves to add to the content. We all have our peculiar interests, and every article requires a touch of history that everyone here has a bit of insight into, sometimes in their own very unique way.

3) Supporting the SWJ/SWC financially. I have fired off a paypal donation or two in the past, and I certainly do not offer enough financial support to compensate for the brilliant content that I get to enjoy. I will pick up a Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy magazine on occasion, but I rarely do so nowadays because there is already excellent content to rummage through here. The writing competition of 2009 drew some excellent and insightful articles, and I hope another can be supported soon. I'd contribute to the next one in a heartbeat, if that support would allow for prizes that draw the best writers out there. I believe I'd also be quick to contribute towards the kitty if it resulted a specific anthology of articles surrounding a theme or two. If that strikes a chord with anyone reading this, make those thoughts known and I'm sure the SWJ team would consider the concept.

Regards,

JC

[carl]

I have yet to see an article from a Thailand security force that discusses their small war in Southern Thailand, or their successful COIN operation against a communist insurgency in the 70s. There is amble room for African authors to contribute.

Bill, here is an article from a Journal past about Thai Village Security Teams.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...or-afghanistan

I thought it was very good and pointed out a possible way to help things in Afghanistan.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Carl,

Bill, here is an article from a Journal past about Thai Village Security Teams.

Thanks. I do recall this article and it is good, but what I was trying to get across is I haven't seen an article from a Thai soldier or police officer on the conflict, so we can see it through their eyes. I suspect Jeff Moore isn't Thai

The reality is many cultures tend to prohibit independent thinking and views, and writing an article truly could be detrimental to their careers or worse. In that case we'll have to rely on other sources, but in those cases we miss an important point of view. I would love to see more Afghans write articles that are critical of our strategy in their country and explain why.

Listening to one another is important, but listening to voices from other countries is critical if we're serious about learning.

[carl]

Bill:

I wonder if we could take advantage of the huge immigrant community in the US. There are people from everywhere and I'll bet a surprising number have relevant experience or have relatives back in the old country who do. If somehow we could reach out to them, we could get around the reluctance to publish. What the heck would a guy who owns a sandwich shop and has a green card care about what the guys in the old country's HQ think.

For example, there are very large numbers of Vietnamese in the US, people from both sides of the line. I don't know if there are Vietnamese veterans associations around but if there are they could be contacted and asked if any of their people would like to submit material dealing with their experiences. The submissions wouldn't have to be in English if arrangements could be made for translation. That would be one of the keys to getting submissions, not having to write in English.

[G Martin]

I think we broaden the discussion and articles to include other examples of small wars- instead of being so OEF/OIF-specific- like others have said. That said, it is very difficult to get politicians and their staffs to get some deeper knowledge of those fights, much less fights that aren't in the news...

I'd echo getting funding up in order to sponsor writing competitions and also conferences- either unilateral or co-hosting or just participating in somehow. I personally haven't been involved in them- but I know there are some IW, etc. conferences held annually- and getting involved with those, maybe SWJ sponsoring a contributor or two or an editor participation/involvement/attendance might be beneficial.

[Dayuhan]

In many places it's difficult for serving members of a military (or those employed in government) to publish anything that deviates in any way from the official line, and in some places that might apply even to those in retirement. Not all military/political cultures are tolerant of dissent. It still might be possible to attract input from other stakeholders in conflict areas, who might have more freedom to express original views.

I've always wanted to see participation from current or past insurgents, though it's easier to talk about than to arrange.

For the journal it might be worth putting out groups of articles focused on specific regions or issues, asking experts to contribute and discuss varying viewpoints.

I think there may be a perception in some quarters that the site is primarily by and for Americans and those in the military, and that participants form outside those parameters are not as easily accepted. I don't think that perception is accurate at all, but as with so many perceptions it can have an impact even if it's not accurate. I'm not sure how that could be overcome, but it might help to have roundtable discussions on specific issues and invite or actively solicit participation from serious, informed foreign critics of US policy.

For the Council... I wouldn't say quality has declined, but I do notice that some of the people who were active participants when I joined, and whose posts made me want to join, are no longer active. That's probably inevitable; participants will always come and go. The question of how to build the participant base while maintaining quality will always be here, I suppose.

[Fuchs]

In many places it's difficult for serving members of a military (or those employed in government) to publish anything that deviates in any way from the official line, and in some places that might apply even to those in retirement.

The Armor and IIRC Infantry Journal appeared to be platforms for occasional dissenting opinions during the 90's, but according to my observation / memory this largely ceased to be true when the top forced the "we need to be quickly deployable for relevance = bureaucratical budget retainment" Stryker hysteria on the armor and infantry branches.
By that time the journals turned into propaganda outlets.