Bigger Problem
Here is a thought on the macro level concerning this issue. Although I support the HTT concept, I think it is a sad commentary on the American education system that the military needs to hire anthropologists to teach soldiers about other cultures. One of the most important requirements in understanding cultures is to understand some basic history; but Americans, as a general rule, tend to abhor the study of history. On the other hand, Muslims have a deep understanding of at least their own history. If one were to ask any Muslim youth between the ages of 10-17 who Saladin was, they would probably be able to tell all about his heroic efforts to repel the "infidel crusaders". Now, ask any Western youth in the same age group who Charles Matel was, and they will probaby give you a blank look even though he is the main reason we are all not running around saying, "Praise be to Allah!"
The point I am getting at here is that the American education system used to better prepare citizens to understand other cultures. We used to receive a classical education in which history, literature, and philosophy were studied. Now, public schools only give a cursory look at these subjects. The result is a population, from which military personnel are drawn, that is ignorant of culture. This is why we need to hire anthropologists to assist us in understanding the human terrain of the Middle East.
American Anit-intellectualism
Hi Abu Suleyman!Originally Posted by Abu Suleyman
I agree! However, this is not just limited to the military. It seems to me that there is an anti-intellectual bent across the spectrum of American society. Unfortunately, this feeling manifests itself in too many military leaders.
I take your overall point but I sure wouldn't use the word "understanding" to describe the accepted view of history in the Arab world (or many other places as well, such as the Balkans). It's more of a consensus on myth more than an understanding of history.
But you're exactly right that Americans have no sense of the power of communal or primal ties, and of place. Let me give an example. When I taught at Leavenworth in the 1980s I had a student from Lebanon. This guy was a Maronite Christian. Lebanon's civil war flared up while he was there and he was totally out of touch with his family. Didn't know whether his wife and young son were even alive.
Of course, it was distraught so his American classmates tried to engage him in conversation to make him feel better. One American asked him where he would move to if things were so bad that he had to leave Lebanon. The guy got a puzzled look on his face and said--"You don't understand. My family has lived in the same house for 500 years. No matter how bad it gets, we could never leave."
Since most Americans tend to pack up and move across the country if their neighbor's dog barks too much, this was a totally alien idea to the Lebanese major's American classmates. To me, it was a poignant example of how deep our inability to understand other cultures runs.
I find it interesting that Shows like Bull####! on Showtime with Penn and Teller have more intellectualism and scientific skepticism than the evening news. Sad or scary it is hilarious.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
The current iteration of the COIN field manual came out of a recognition that how things were done before was no longer good enough. If that sort of a critique is valid for the substance of the manual, it is not that far off to suggest that the process and form of such a manual might require reworking as well. I think we are beyond the point where it is enough that "two flag officers' signatures...annoint it as the doctrine." From what I know of LtGen Mattis, I can't imagine he'd want his signature to serve as a barrier to a rigorous critiqe of the document, in either its contents, the final form it takes, or the process by which it was created.
Cheers,
Jill
Rigorous critique is fine. "It doesn't have enough citations" does not constitute a rigorous critique. Ideological potshots at American involvement in Iraq do not constitute rigorous critique.
Culture as Reflection
You are exactly right! One only has to look at the dramatic arts to get a reflection of America's intellectual state. Some of the so called comedies out there are intellectually bankrupt, to put it mildly ("Dumb and Dumber", "Napoleaon Dynamite", etc.). I don't mean to sound like a prude; but if we want to understand why we must hire anthropoligists, we have to do a little self-examination. The facts are that our kids are more interested in watching these types of movies than learning about the real world. I am probably taking this too seriously, though! As my own kids tell me, I am just a "big ol' fuddie-duddie"!
Hi Steve,
Yes, you are absolutely correct about their conception of history! One of the challenges of IO professionals is to figure out how to deconstruct Muslim conceptions of history. How do we get them not to view events that occured in the 10th Century as the apex of their civilization? Talk about a difficult challenge!!! That being said, at least they do not have the Western self-loathing that prevents them from learning at least a mythological version of the heroes of their civilization.
Hey--I found Napoleon Dynamite rife with existential pathos.
I'm a bit skeptical of the ability of IO professionals to alter a lifetime of acculturation.
But, of course, every culture, including our own, has a mythological version of its own past. I've found myself having to explain to officers from abroad that the author of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, and that the the freedom of religion that the Pilgrims came so far for was, in fact, the freedom to impose their benighted religion on everyone within reach.
actually, I think its a pretty impressive generation...
For what its worth, I've taught an awful lot of university students (well over ten thousand by my reckoning), and I usually find them a pretty impressive bunch--engaged, interested, active.
Just to provide an example: a couple of years back, a UNDP colleague in Africa needed an intern for 3-4 months to work on a host of urgent issues (AIDS, food security). There was free accommodation, but no pay, and the student would have to finance their own travel.
I mentioned it to my senior class of 105 students. By the end of the week I had 23 volunteers. The one that we ultimately selected had a straight-A record and was joint honours in development studies and microbiology. By all accounts, she did a superb job.
I can't go anywhere these days without running into ex-students in the field--with the UN, NGOs, as FSOs or with aid agencies or as soldiers, as translators or analysts, or teachers and researchers. They are at least as committed as "my" generation, and have a range of networking and IT skills (on top of everything) that didn't exist a couple of decades ago.
(I don't agree as to the quality of contemporary popular culture either, I'll leave that one aside for now!)
Rex I agree with you, my students are motivated, smart, giving, and they volunteer like crazy to help each other and people they've never met.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
That the work doesn't have adequate citations is as good a place as any to start a rigorous critique of the process and the form of the work. The only answers given to this are first, that this is how it's done, and second, the document is signed by two flag officers, and only their wisdom matters. Both of these answers have been given as a means to end any discussion regarding the form of the manual, or the process by which it was put together. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that these justifications are weak.
Whatever his intentions or motivations, Price has pointed to a flaw in the manual. I don't much care about the messenger, but I do think the message bears consideration beyond that which it has received here. I have no ideological axe to grind, but as an historian, I think these things are important.
Again I will say, if the content of the doctrine was worthy of reconsideration, then it's not too far-fetched to suggest that other aspects of the doctrine might not suffer from fresh round of thought.
Pretend that somebody you respected identified the problem.
Regards,
Jill
We'll agree to disagree. I think the only "flaw" Price has pointed out is that the manual isn't an academic document. I think that's about as valid as me critiquing one of Price's articles because it doesn't have a mission statement and alternative courses of action. In fact, I think it's amazing hubris on his part to assume that all the rest of the world should conform to the standards of his profession.
I would respectfully submit that if someone wants to critique how doctrine is developed, it's incumbent on them to actually find out how doctrine is developed rather than just assuming that the process is one they're familiar with. So what I think of Price isn't my point; I don't think he has, in fact, identified a "problem." He simply claims to as a wedge to expound his personal ideology.
Originally posted by Steve Metz:
A much under appreciated point. Facts are, the Anthropology market isn't exactly a white hot job market, but there is and has been (and will be) a market for consultant/contract type work for anthropologists who have field experience in what would qualify as "developing nations" - from multi national corporations.As long as my dander is up and I'm in mid-rant, let me throw out another point. While some trained anthropologist who consult with the government undoubtedly do so because they believe in the cause, I suspect there are other who do it just because it's a job. So the profession generates more anthropologists than the academic market can absorb, and then carps when they seek other ways to make a living.
But the point is, these places are all about money (big, multi year development contracts), and as a result, they need to put people on the ground with field experience who can perform "out of the box", if you will. Straight academic types are of very little use to these folks - they bring little to the table that is of value. Well, if a HTT vet is a candidate for one of these types of job vrs. a bunch of academic types with limited developing nation field experience, that HTT vet is going to have a better chance of getting through the door and ending up on the short list.
This whole deal seems to an outsider to be an elitist attempt by the Anthropology "Haves" to stop the rest of the Anthropolgy marketplace from being polluted by issues like "Making a living", or getting a chance at credible developing nation field expertise.
From a purely economic basis, this stance by the AAA seems to be completely illogical - you want to try and grow your marketplace for your graduating students, not wall it off and limit it's growth.
One last point to consider - just as everybody notes how the military adopts processes and technology from the marketplace, don't forget that the reverse is also true. The marketplace also looks at how the military innovates, and both learns and adopts. The AAA might want to take that into consideration if they want to expand opportunities for their membership.
Clarification
Hi Rex and Selil!
In my haughty mood, I may have been too hard on the education system in my posts. I am glad to hear that there are so many motivated students. However, I would like to clarify that I was referring to the common education kids receive in the public school system (K-12). I would expect the students at the university level to be more motivated, but they are not the pool from which the Army is drawing recruits. In COIN, the things that occur at the street level between a private and the citizens of a village may have more important strategic consequences than the decisions of a general in his headquarters. The reality of this situation has triggered some debate in the military about how we develop the "strategic private". In other words, how do we take an 18-24 year old kid who has been consumed with nothing but pop culture his whole life, I work with these kids every day, and turn him in to a strategic thinker who considers the role of history, religion, culture, and geopolitics in his decision making process, while at the same time maintaining the necessary situational awareness required to stay alive in a combat zone? This is a tough nut to crack! It may be impossible! I just think a step in the right direction would be to change the anti[intellectual sentiment in America. Of course that requires changing a culture, and we all know how hard that can be.
DISCLAIMER: I don't mean to come off as being intellectually arrogant. On the contrary, I have the most to learn and should be farther along than I am, and there are PLENTY who are brighter than me.
I don't think this is anti-academia bias. It is a disdain for a niche within academia that has an irrational dislike, borne primarily of ignorance, towards the military. I don't think that any significant portion of the military has a bias against the majority of normal professors who, while they may be leftists, do not have an irrational dislike for the military.
Speaking for myself, I was commissioned through a 2-year military program and then finished my degree at a 4-year university in a far-left city. I actually kept my military affiliation a secret for my junior year for fear of being treated unfairly by my professors, but I soon learned that this was nothing to worry about. I have a high regard for many of those professors - even though several were socialists. On the other hand, I encountered a community college professor in my hometown who was energetically opposing a JROTC program in a local high school. He claimed that this was "an attempt to instill the military mindset into unsuspecting children and turn them into cold blooded killers." When I explained to him his fundamental misunderstanding of JROTC and the limited utility of drill & ceremonies to modern warfare, he declared that I am a brain-washed murderer with the blood of innocent people on my hands (and this was BEFORE 9/11). I confess to having an extreme bias towards that individual and those like him him who have dedicated themselves to ignorance and hate.
My impression was that most of my Soldiers "got it". Although they were quick to put up their impression of what a tough guy is and says, always being quick to make a dumb statement like "kill em all and let God sort em out", this was just an expression of frustration. They understood that this is just a dumb phrase and not the way to go about our jobs. So long as their squad and team leaders set the example and did the right thing, the Soldiers were happy to emulate that good example. Fortunately, once a Soldier was faced with the responsibility of being a team leader or squad leader, he quickly began to understand why getting to know the people in a neighborhood is more important than killing them. I doubt that many would be considered strategic thinkers - nor would I consider myself or other leaders in the company to have been so - but they were smart guys who could quickly learn and apply the lessons from people who are strategic thinkers.
I'd have to agree with Rex and Selil - most of my students are quite interested in learning and, in many cases, quite mad that they were not challenged in High School.
And other areas as wellOriginally posted by Steve Metz:
A much under appreciated point. Facts are, the Anthropology market isn't exactly a white hot job market, but there is and has been (and will be) a market for consultant/contract type work for anthropologists who have field experience in what would qualify as "developing nations" - from multi national corporations.As long as my dander is up and I'm in mid-rant, let me throw out another point. While some trained anthropologist who consult with the government undoubtedly do so because they believe in the cause, I suspect there are other who do it just because it's a job. So the profession generates more anthropologists than the academic market can absorb, and then carps when they seek other ways to make a living.. This situation, too many PhD's for the academy, has existed since the late 1970's, and the AAA has had the problem of a polarized membership for at least that long. Organizationally, I'm not surprised to see this - it is an inevitable consequence of the way the discipline has developed. In some ways, it mirrors the split in Mathematics (Theoretical vs. Applied).
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Hi Steve,
One might almost consider accusing him of politically correct cultural relativism.
Steve, I think Jill has an excellent point and that the two of you are,in effect, arguing apples and oranges. I think that it is important to distinguish between a critique of the process of doctrine writing and a critique of the doctrine itself. I certainly ave no difficulty with your comments on Price's critique of the process, he doesn't seem to know what he is talking about there, but I think that Jill is right about the citations being a good place to start for a critique in the area of content. If nothing else, the definitions used contain assumptions of reality that may, or may not, be the best available (I know they aren't for the definition of ritual).
So, where to start on the critique of the doctrine itself? While I'll admit that doctrine is about satisficing behaviour (i.e. good enough to work, not necessarily the "best"), I think it is also important that it be extensible in a theoretically coherent manner. For example, the definition of ritual is highly limited and extensible only to observable behaviour - not a position that Turner held in his later work and inherently problematic if we wanted to extend the work to include IO and PSYOPS.
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks