"Experts"

[dpeters]

Given the lack of solutions with respect to the Iraq situation it is easy to understand why the US is looking far and wide for answers. Let us not, however, fall prey to snake oil salesmen who annoint themselves as counterinsurgency experts and who are trying to market themselves as experts around various governmental entities in these times. Consider, for example, Colin Kahl who has been deemed as a counterinsurgency expert by at least one think tank ( http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?893) and Harvard no less (http://www.belfercenter.org/experts/...in_h_kahl.html ). Mr. Kahl (http://www2.cla.umn.edu/reach/Fall06/Kahl.html) has spent around a year at DoD studying the rule of law in war and spent 4 days in Iraq (per his own testimony). He has 0 years military experience and is a brand new assistant professor at Georgetown. Yes he has probably read every open source article on Iraq that exists. But he has annointed himself a counterinsurgency expert and has convinced the "New Yorker"; "Mother Jones" and "Foreign Affairs" that he is an expert and thus he is worth listening too. He is even prescribing military strategy to those who will listen to him (see the New Yorker article for an example). If one closely reads the links provided it becomes apparent that Mr. Kahl is a smooth talker but not too careful in presenting a honest account of his credentials, For instance, his 4 actual days in Iraq become a "summer long study" in his credentials list on the cnas.org website. From his own website, In July, Kahl headed to Iraq for four days, to conduct interviews in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone and at Camp Victory, the U.S. military headquarters at the former Baghdad airport. It was an intense and unnerving experience, he recalls. “We got shelled every day I was there.”". It is understandable that upward people like Mr. Kahl want to market themselves and advance their career. What experiences does he in fact have that define him as a counterinsurgency expert? I'm still looking. And his is only one example. The situation in Iraq is dire-lives are at stake to say nothing of our country's reputation. Lets stick with credible professionals for advice when construction policy.

[SteveMetz]

Given the lack of solutions with respect to the Iraq situation it is easy to understand why the US is looking far and wide for answers. Let us not, however, fall prey to snake oil salesmen who annoint themselves as counterinsurgency experts and who are trying to market themselves as experts around various governmental entities in these times. Consider, for example, Colin Kahl who has been deemed as a counterinsurgency expert by at least one think tank ( http://www.cnas.org/en/cms/?893) and Harvard no less (http://www.belfercenter.org/experts/...in_h_kahl.html ). Mr. Kahl (http://www2.cla.umn.edu/reach/Fall06/Kahl.html) has spent around a year at DoD studying the rule of law in war and spent 4 days in Iraq (per his own testimony). He has 0 years military experience and is a brand new assistant professor at Georgetown. Yes he has probably read every open source article on Iraq that exists. But he has annointed himself a counterinsurgency expert and has convinced the "New Yorker"; "Mother Jones" and "Foreign Affairs" that he is an expert and thus he is worth listening too. He is even prescribing military strategy to those who will listen to him (see the New Yorker article for an example). If one closely reads the links provided it becomes apparent that Mr. Kahl is a smooth talker but not too careful in presenting a honest account of his credentials, For instance, his 4 actual days in Iraq become a "summer long study" in his credentials list on the cnas.org website. From his own website, In July, Kahl headed to Iraq for four days, to conduct interviews in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone and at Camp Victory, the U.S. military headquarters at the former Baghdad airport. It was an intense and unnerving experience, he recalls. “We got shelled every day I was there.”". It is understandable that upward people like Mr. Kahl want to market themselves and advance their career. What experiences does he in fact have that define him as a counterinsurgency expert? I'm still looking. And his is only one example. The situation in Iraq is dire-lives are at stake to say nothing of our country's reputation. Lets stick with credible professionals for advice when construction policy.

I have mixed feelings about this. Colin is an exceptionally bright guy. In find him quite impressive intellectually. But you're right that I don't think he'd done much analysis of insurgency until a few years ago. But what does qualify someone to be an "expert"? After, the military suffers from what I've heard called the "any colonel can" syndrome--the idea that if someone was competent enough to become a colonel, he can do any job. So we end up with colonels and generals with no counterinsurgency background leading counterinsurgency efforts.

I've also been concerned that in terms of counterinsurgency, TOO MUCH expertise can be an impediment. As the U.S. military has re-engaged with it, I've heard a lot of people with deep experience go to great lengths to cram Iraq into the box of El Salvador or even Vietnam. Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

[Rank amateur]

Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

My new signature. But if you're wrong, it doesn't take long before the heavy artillery starts raining down.

[Adrian]

Kahl had a good online debate with Brian Katulis and Marc Lynch over at Dr. Lynch's blog:
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaa...atulis-de.html

[selil]

So we end up with colonels and generals with no counterinsurgency background leading counterinsurgency efforts......I've also been concerned that in terms of counterinsurgency, TOO MUCH expertise can be an impediment.......Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

If you want the same answer give them the same training and expect the same level of wrong. More experience can often lead to more wrong.

[Gian P Gentile]

I've also been concerned that in terms of counterinsurgency, TOO MUCH expertise can be an impediment. As the U.S. military has re-engaged with it, I've heard a lot of people with deep experience go to great lengths to cram Iraq into the box of El Salvador or even Vietnam. Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

I think this is an exceptionally important point that Steve makes. Too much experience especially when it is combined with lots of reading and analysis on a subject can produce in some folks arrogance and a positivist approach to fighting a counterinsurgency war. This is actually the main point that I make in an article running online now in AFJ, The Dogmas of War. This is also why I like to offer strident critiques of Nagl and Kilkullen because i think they are good examples of folks who have become just a bit too cocksure about the way ahead in places like Iraq. Nagl just reaked of positivism when he appeared on the Daily Show. Too, his book, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, has gone from being an important book on how organizations learn to a way overrated and incorrectly perceived "history" book of vietnam and malaya. It in fact is a poor example of the latter but to highlight and take a step further Steve's point, we seem to be trying to cram Nagl's purported lessons from Malaya and Vietnam into Iraq; thereby causing us to become dogmatic there.

gian

[goesh]

It seems to me many are posturing and positioning now that the Whitehouse is up for grabs in a year's time. Some of this could have been coming out alot sooner IMO and I remain suspicious of motives.

[kehenry1]

Experts, as my grandmother once told me are "ex-spurts". In other words, they have their moments of importance and then they are gone. Thus, I never claim to be an expert on any subject. Just an interested party.

[RTK]

Experts, as my grandmother once told me are "ex-spurts". In other words, they have their moments of importance and then they are gone. Thus, I never claim to be an expert on any subject. Just an interested party.

I think there's a fine line between experts and people that think they know what they're doing. Further, I think this applies to any discipline or field of study. There should be a fine line between "experienced" and "expert." Often we confuse the two terms. Take a look at any given mixed martial arts amature night.

For instance, as an instructor of reconnaissance tactics, I probably have more knowledge in the field of study than 99% of the Army. That doesn't mean I know 99% of what there is to know about reconnaissance. I'd like to think that I haven't moved past my "moment of importance," though I have been introduced as an expert in the tactical and technical application of reconnaissance tactics, planning, and execution.

In terms of inflated resumes and hollow "expert" labels, I agree with you. But I think a distinction should be made between the two.

[RTK]

Lets stick with credible professionals for advice when construction policy.

I'd admire your enthusiasm, but speaking of credibility, could you please introduce yourself here?

[Abu Suleyman]

Mr. Kahl (http://www2.cla.umn.edu/reach/Fall06/Kahl.html) has spent around a year at DoD studying the rule of law in war and spent 4 days in Iraq (per his own testimony). He has 0 years military experience and is a brand new assistant professor at Georgetown.

The word expert gets tossed around a lot in the media, and in general it says more about the opinion of one person than about the qualifications of another.

However I must strongly object to this ad homenim attack. Whether or not someone has been to war or not does not make or unmake his expertise. If that were the case, no one living could be an expert on the Civil War, because they weren't there. Moreover, just being there is not always an advantage. What about the E-4 that is coming off of his third tour, but never saw anything above what was immediately around him? Does he have more knowledge about COIN than someone who has studied it for years, taking advantage of the experience of hundreds and with the perspective that some distance brings? That would be like saying a father has more knowledge about conception than the childless obstetrician, "Because he's been there done that."

There are a lot of things that can be learned by study. That said, little I know of, is not enhanced with personal experience on the ground. Nevertheless, there is a need for thoughtful study as well as ground pounding experience, and we should not care which one actually comes up with the solution. It was General of the Army Marshall who never fought in WWII that had more to do with the winning strategy than any one else (I concede that this point is debatable, but maintain that it is valid for the illustration).

If experience on the ground is so superior, and it may well be, then it should be easy for the experienced of which we have no lack, to refute Dr. Kahl's statements on the subject. However, if he has good points then his points should be taken in stride, and adopted. I for one, like shaving and praying when and how I want.