Human Terrain & Anthropology (merged thread)

[Steve Blair]

Steve,

I know that doctrine isn't cited. Doesn't bother me a bit either way. Like I said, I'd be interested in the citations for my own personal curiosity. I've felt that way about similar publications...no need to get excited about it...

The other part of this is simple IO on the part of the military. Sure, they aren't NEEDED, but if you make them available you undercut some of Price's ground.

But we've also come full circle in this thread about three times now. No need to chase the hare around the tree again.

[Adam L]

But this case of FM 3-24 is different which seems to pass over most of the blog postings on this issue up to now. FM3-24 is not your garden variety army doctrine. It is not at all like for example the doctrine I used for reconnaissance in a heavy brigade when I commanded an ars. This was one of the main points of the Price piece. This FM3-24, at least the way it has been hawked to the public, is unique in that the perception created by Nagl, Con Crane, Gen Petreaus, McFate, Sarah Sewall, et al is that they as scholars had a very strong hand in writing it. So Price's point is that in this case you shouldn’t have it both ways. If as scholars would they see it as acceptable to use direct quotes or ideas from another source without somehow crediting it? I would not even if I wrote parts of or entire chapters in the new Coin manual. Also, the new Coin doctrine is intentionally built not so much on previous and contemporary army experience in coin (because of so much what many coin experts always say that the army up to the Surge was basically horrible at it and discarded any lessons from previous coin ops) but on historical cases like Galula and Thompson and on social and anthropological theories and models. So FM3-24 is different and Price's point that a different standard concerning the crediting of sources should apply.

You know sitting back as an outsider to the majority of thinking of the writers on this blog most of you have your hair stand on end when certain things are attacked or questioned. Those things are: anything that John Nagl or Dave Kilkullen writes; anything that questions the perceived success of the Surge; anything that fundamentally questions the efficacy of Coin operations to include its operational doctrine. The only topic I have seen on this blog that had drawn serious and deep debate is the discussion currently ongoing over waterboarding and torture.

gentile

Great post.

Adam

[Sargent]

The more I have watched this discussion unfold, the more it seems to me that Price had an entirely different motivation. My theory is that his objective was really to conduct an anthropological experiment to examine the following:

- How does a group respond to criticism? What effect does it have when the criticism comes from without? What effect does it have when the criticism is directed to a matter seen as irrelevant by the group?

- As regards the specific responses to the criticism, part 1: Can the group internalize and give any credence to the criticism? To what extent will the norms of the group be used to nullify the criticism? To what extent will external norms be criticised in response?

- As regards the specific responses to the criticism, part 2: How long does it take for the critic to become the target of the response? When will a nefarious agenda be suggested as the real source of the criticism? When will the critic's credentials be called into question? When will the critic be ridiculed outright?

Ok, this is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but it would certainly have been a fruitful experiment given the conduct of the discussion herein.

[Adam L]

That would be creative!

Adam

[Rex Brynen]

The more I have watched this discussion unfold, the more it seems to me that Price had an entirely different motivation. My theory is that his objective was really to conduct an anthropological experiment to examine the following:

*lol*

Damn, and now you've gone and contaminated his respondent group by sensitizing them to the research questions

[Adam L]

*lol*

Damn, and now you've gone and contaminated his respondent group by sensitizing them to the research questions

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! (this is a long "no" not "noo")

LOL!

Adam

[Mark O'Neill]

Forget about validity. It’s good to have it in there (not necessarily the field version but one of them) so that people can try to better understand your opinions. Adam

Adam,

I think part of the problem might be that your understanding of doctrine is quite different to that of its producers and users. Doctrine is not 'opinion'. It is culturally sensitive organisational guidance ( and, in some cases, regulation). It almost invariably does not represent one man's opinion - indeed, that would be virtually impossible given the type of 'committee process' system of writing, editing, review and publication that most western militaries use.

Furthermore, Military doctrine is 'applied' writing. Tt only exists to guide the masses, either philosophically or procedurally, to address a percieved problem that they may encounter or have to deal with in the 'real' world. (no percieved problem = no doctrine written on the subject, another distinction between academic work and the military need for writing).

Noting then that doctrine is a 'problem solving guide' for soldiers who are a) invariably time poor, and b) often (unfortunately) disinclined to be prolific readers and c) want an answer or clue "now"; the use of an academic writing style would be culturally inappropriate. It is not an accident that military doctrine is styled as it is.

Regarding wanting to 'know' how the ideas are sourced or justified. This suggests a failure to appreciate the military and the issue of 'trust'. The military is, to a large extent, a 'paternal' organisation built on mutual trust. That trust is demonstrated at all levels - from breaking cover to advance in contact and trusting your fire support team to give you the supressive fire that you need to move ahead safely, to the idea of 'no man left behind', to the fact that soldiers (and officers) trust the judgment of those who the organisation selects / directs to write the doctrine that guides. I contend that there is no replicable level of trust implicit in normal civil society (or academia).

Accordingly, it may be understandable that some are not 'happy' with the style of military doctrine - they demonstrably do not comprehend the real nature of what they are reading or discussing. Ultimately, I believe that this is of little or no consequence to the military, since these folks are not the targetted audience. Until you have to rely upon Mr Price, or any of his adherents, to actually do something useful to contribute to the defence of your country, it really does not matter whether he approves of military doctrine or not - since he clearly has no practical use for such an 'applied' work. I would go as far to say the simple solution for Mr Price would be "if it troubles you, don't read it". I suspect that no one in the military would care if he did not.

Gian,

I believe your comments re: Nagl, Kilcullen, Surge etc are wide of the mark. My observation of this discussion board has been that all comment is welcome as long as it conforms to the accepted standards of reason, politeness and evidence based argument. If you have something to saa about any of the things you mentioned I would urge you to say it - keeping within the guidlines you accepted when signed up.

Cheers,

Mark

[SWJED]

**Snip**

You know sitting back as an outsider to the majority of thinking of the writers on this blog most of you have your hair stand on end when certain things are attacked or questioned. Those things are: anything that John Nagl or Dave Kilkullen writes; anything that questions the perceived success of the Surge; anything that fundamentally questions the efficacy of Coin operations to include its operational doctrine. The only topic I have seen on this blog that had drawn serious and deep debate is the discussion currently ongoing over waterboarding and torture.

gentile

Gian,

Not so, but I doubt I could change your mind as you are very persistent in pointing out our flawed thinking whenever someone here (or elsewhere for that matter) agrees with certain counterinsurgency experts, FM 3-24 and items concerning the Surge.

One could say just the opposite concerning many of your comments here and on the blog - your hair stands on end when anyone agrees with the writings of Nagl or Kilcullen, success of the Surge... Your opinion has been respected here and we ask you do the same for other Council members.

Dave

All,

I try to stay hands off as much as possible on the Council as it is pretty much self-policing and several volunteer moderators have pitched in to help keep things professional and sane. This is especially important as we have grown of late and indications are this trend will continue.

Mark has raised a very good point - one that we all need to heed here:

My observation of this discussion board has been that all comment is welcome as long as it conforms to the accepted standards of reason, politeness and evidence based argument. If you have something to say about any of the things you mentioned I would urge you to say it - keeping within the guidelines you accepted when signed up.

Dave / SWJED

[Gian P Gentile]

Dave:

I respect their opinions; I just disagree with many of them and think they should be challenged stridently since they do carry so much weight and influence. You have to admit that poor Mr Price got a pretty good shellacking on this blog and many of the attacks were quite personal. I think I remember a few entries ago somebody making disparaging comments about Mr Price being from a “third tier” university.

I acknowledge that early on in some of my first postings I did cross the line and attacked the person and not the idea. Ironhorse pointed out my ways to me and I have since avoided those mistakes. Pointing out that I think that Nagl and Kilkullen are taken without serious critical assessment is not personal but something that should be considered.

gian

[Rank amateur]

Pointing out that I think that Nagl and Kilkullen are taken without serious critical assessment is not personal but something that should be considered.
gian

President Bush was taken without serious critical assessment here for four years. He still is by a few die hards, but the folks here are pretty smart and figure things out eventually. They only take things personally if you name someone they like. (The "Move on" error.)

If you replace Nagl and Kilcullen with FM 3-24 in everyone of your posts, I'm sure you'll fit in better than me and the closest I've been to West Point was as a passenger on the Amtrak train that goes down the Hudson.

[SWJED]

President Bush was taken without serious critical assessment here for four years. He still is by a few die hards, but the folks here are pretty smart and figure things out eventually. They only take things personally if you name someone they like. (The "Move on" error.)

If you replace Nagl and Kilcullen with FM 3-24 in everyone of your posts, I'm sure you'll fit in better than me and the closest I've been to West Point was as a passenger on the Amtrak train that goes down the Hudson.

The board is only two years old (9-11-2005) and most members did not join until well into our first and second years. You joined a mere two 1/2 months ago. As for the rest of your "observations" I'll just say - see the first one and then consider the "figure things out" and "take things personally" cooments. Sweeping generalizations don't cut it here. Thanks in advance for showing restraint and the research you will do and cites you will make before future postings about the SWC and its members.

[Adam L]

Gian,

I believe your comments re: Nagl, Kilcullen, Surge etc are wide of the mark. My observation of this discussion board has been that all comment is welcome as long as it conforms to the accepted standards of reason, politeness and evidence based argument. If you have something to saa about any of the things you mentioned I would urge you to say it - keeping within the guidlines you accepted when signed up.

Cheers,

Mark

Mark,

I have to say that all posts that I have seen from Mr. Gentile on this thread (and a few others) have been direct, on point and respectful to the others on SWC. He may be critical of Nagle, Kilcullen, etc., but his disaggreements appear to come from a legitimate viewpoint.

One could say just the opposite concerning many of your comments here and on the blog - your hair stands on end when anyone agrees with the writings of Nagl or Kilcullen, success of the Surge... Your opinion has been respected here and we ask you do the same for other Council members.

Dave

All,

I try to stay hands off as much as possible on the Council as it is pretty much self-policing and several volunteer moderators have pitched in to help keep things professional and sane. This is especially important as we have grown of late and indications are this trend will continue.

Mark has raised a very good point - one that we all need to heed here:
Dave / SWJED

I don't see where things have gone over the line in this blog. I do not agree that Mr. Gentile's comments came near to or over the line. His logic and analysis are impecable. He may be aggressive in his attacks on others' arguments, but this does not appear to be personal.

I think I remember a few entries ago somebody making disparaging comments about Mr Price being from a “third tier” university.

Yup!

Adam

[Mark O'Neill]

Mark,

I have to say that all posts that I have seen from Mr. Gentile on this thread (and a few others) have been direct, on point and respectful to the others on SWC. He may be critical of Nagle, Kilcullen, etc., but his disaggreements appear to come from a legitimate viewpoint.



I don't see where things have gone over the line in this blog. I do not agree that Mr. Gentile's comments came near to or over the line. His logic and analysis are impecable. He may be aggressive in his attacks on others' arguments, but this does not appear to be personal.



Yup!

Adam

Adam,

A point of clarification - I was not saying that Gian had been offensive or crossed any 'line' with Nagl, Kilcullen et al. My point was that no one here is that ''precious (well, few are...) that they cannot be questioned, after all, only the Pope has moments of doctrinal 'infallibility'...Accordingly if Gian had something to say he should say it.

Cheers

Mark

[wm]

Here's a solution to the apparent impasse and declining use of civil discourse that have manifested themselves recently on this thread as well as several others like Chaotic Dynamics; Strategy, Values, and Ideas; and Russia and the US to name just a few.

Let's split the SWC discussion board into three autonomous regions. It seems to me it would map out like this:
--liberal intellectual theorists on one board
--conservative hands-on practitioners on a second board
--middle of the road synthesizers on the third

It can be used as a test bed to see how well this sort of proposal might solve the problems in Iraq.

In the interests of full disclosure, I must admit that this idea was stimulated by Sargent's post "A Different Motivation for Price"

[marct]

First, some of the issues we have been talking about are also discussed in the latest SWJ Blog Ivory Tower? Or Glass?. Second, it looks like one of the drafts has appeared with full citations. Food for thought all around...

Marc

[SteveMetz]

Pointing out that I think that Nagl and Kilkullen are taken without serious critical assessment is not personal but something that should be considered.

gian

As someone who was sort of at the periphery of the 3-24 development process, I think you greatly overestimate the role of Dave and John. Ultimately the manual reflects the judgement of the flag officers of the two services.

[SteveMetz]

First, some of the issues we have been talking about are also discussed in the latest SWJ Blog Ivory Tower? Or Glass?. Second, it looks like one of the drafts has appeared with full citations. Food for thought all around...

Marc

Just so I understand, we're just talking about that one chapter and not the whole manual?

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Just so I understand, we're just talking about that one chapter and not the whole manual?

It looks like a part of chapter 3 to me, not the whole thing. Based on that (and some emails I've received) it looks like the drafts had full citations, but they were stripped off during the editing process.

[historyguy99]

Dr. Tom Barnett has some thoughtful comments, and advice to: Disregard academic critique of the new COIN manual.

[Gian P Gentile]

As someone who was sort of at the periphery of the 3-24 development process, I think you greatly overestimate the role of Dave and John. Ultimately the manual reflects the judgement of the flag officers of the two services.

Steve:

But this was exactly the point i made in an earlier posting to highlight the main point concerning plagiarism that Price makes but no one wants to take head-on. Actually based on your experience with the writing of the manual you probably are right that Nagl and Kilkullen, McFate et al had little actual role in the writing of the thing. But Price's point is that these invidiauls have helped to create the perception that they were the primary writers. I mean I bet if we went back in and reviewed the Daily Show with Nagl or the Charlies Rose interview with Kilkullen we would certainly get the impression that they were the primary writers of it. Which again is Price's point along with the idea that this manual is not your garden variety version of army doctrine and i cant believe that any one else out there would think so either. How many versions of army doctrine in the last 20 years have published by a major university press and sold many, many copies to the general public?

This is the question i have raised and the point from Price's piece that i have tried to highlight. And in this sense i do think it is reasonable to question people like Nagl, Kilkullen, McFate, and others as to why there wasnt a better job at citing original sources in the final version.

I wish Price would have written this piece with those as the primary questions and left off his rant against anthropologists in the Army which is the main reason i think he has been attacked so stridently.

thanks
gian