SWJ: praise given and reviews (merged)

[jcustis]

Let's not forget that the SWC underwent a not so insignificant realignment a while back that brought it to the degree of detail that it offers now. SWCADMIN likes to refer to the content as "containers" on occasion. He realized that those containers had to change a bit, and we arguably saw a broadening of membership and discussion participants as a result.

I think the mods spent a considerable amount of time shifting threads, both old and new, in the ensuing months. Everyone caught on very quickly and I don't think I've heard a comment bout layout or flow in quite a while.

[PhilR]

I think that the SWJ site (the collective whole of the Journal, Blog, Discussion Forum and reference areas) is a good way to actually structure a matrixed and dispersed (maybe virtual) organization.
In the military, there is a plethora of "Centers of Excellence" being created. Beyond the usual jokes about the name, the attempt is being made to gather the threads of some critical warfighting mission, capability, aspect, etc. and create a focal point to facilitate organizing the knowledge in hopes of better dissemination (education and training) and being the advocate for new/better ideas and systems.
I've heard a couple of business presentations and one thing that sticks out is the contention that it is easier to organize around the software than to make the software adapt to a pre-determined organization. I think that the SWJ site could be a model for similar official sites to provide a focal point to discuss and assist in knowledge dissemination, etc. Sort of like what COEs are attempting to do.
As to blogging specifically, as a planner (experience at MEF, JTF, MNF-I and Fleet levels), I think that the discussion board and blog are a great model for managing deliberate planning efforts. Current Ops folks use chat rooms to coordinate in real time. Planners, especially at the higher echelons, don't need that immediate real time response, but need to handle and track multiple issues over the course of time. I could easily see an effort involving multiple HQs organzing the planning around a discussion board type organization.
The problem I have had in trying to implement this is that the military is more comfortable in trying to use email for this purpose, or to just post things in folders on websites. I think this idea will take off more as the younger generation who are growing up with it "come of age" into the field grade ranks (if they choose to stay past Captain).

[ericmwalters]

PhilR--
I've just GOT to get you involved with the Lejeune Leadership Institute because we use BlackBoard as the collaborative medium. Right now, most people use the discussion threads (much like the ones here, but not as aesthetically pleasing!), but there's blogs, announcements, and WIKIS!!!! (the latter I REALLY for batting around definitions, publication paragraphs/pages, etc).

Have to agree with everything you say--I'm just looking for a model to show people. I'm even feeling cramped in SWJ--why don't we have podcast capability? Now there's an idea...I'd like to get my journal mag in podcast form (that's how I get my wargame news already--on the computer or on my iPod when working out)...there's five wargamer podcasts I listen to...

[selil]

I use a variety of tools from WebCT/Blackboard to SharePoint and Citrix.

I'm all for podcasting if four people would commit to just 8 weeks once a week I'd produce it.

[SWJED]

... we are all ears. SWJ / SWC has plans and we need to hear ways to improve.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

from an older thread on think tanks: "There are far more informed opinions, thoughts, and better analysis on here [SWJ] than the paid guns at Brookings, AEI, the Heritage Foundation, or the Council on Foreign Relations--most of whom have never engaged in actual foreign relations other than as a pundit, academic, or a student." While the quote was aimed at a different group of "thinkers" I think it also pertains to academia in general per this thread.

Marct responded to Tom with: "people here have much less "awe" of academic credentials and are more than happy to tell us ivory tower types that we are nuts ; people here tend to prefer experiential knowledge to academic knowledge - the pragmatic over the theoretical - so any theoretical plan or position gets vetted by pragmatists, not the other way around."

Which is also spot on. We blogospherites have not been properly "vetted" by the lofty academians and I feel we are thus held in very low esteem by those with larger brains and more parchment on their walls.

[William F. Owen]

We blogospherites have not been properly "vetted" by the lofty academians and I feel we are thus held in very low esteem by those with larger brains and more parchment on their walls.

I think some blogospherites should hold themselves in low esteem. The vast majority of what is written about military affairs on the internet is utter garbage. SWC is an exception because it holds people to rigour.

RIGOUR is what is mostly lacking. Lack of rigour gave us EBO, MW 4GW and a whole raft of other shaky strategic and military thought.

Having said that, there are very few academics in this area, I pay any attention to either. If you read some the PhDs that get handed out, or the work/papers that get cited as "insightful" the future is not bright.

It amazes me when folks, at conferences, come up to me and ask "where were you," as if having an MsC or PhD has anything to do with the credibility of my work.