dissertation help please! US military culture and small wars.

[xander day]

guys, i am amazed by both the speed of your replies and also the effort that you have all put in to help me with this! thanks so much!

Oh, before going any further, I am sorry about the unprofessional and inexperienced comment. This was a statement taken from an analysis of American experience in small wars, the inexperienced part was because of the lack of doctrinal information regarding small wars available to U.S. servicemen and women (at the time of writing, which I believe was the start of the 1980s). The unprofessional part (I groaned when I re-read that) was referring to the differences between the British Regulars and the American draftees of Vietnam and the high turnover of recruits – DEFINATELY not in any way trying to say that the U.S. Army is in any way unprofessional.

on to business:

one of the problems that I have with this dissertation is in sourcing material. I do not, unfortunately, have access to the most up to date books and journals, and as such I am having to rely upon many useful, but old, sources- of which the university library only has a limited number. Hence why what I have outlined may well sound re-hashed or done before. Also, being a 21 year old student, I rely upon firsthand accounts, and so the quotes that I use and my writing in general will reflect the points raised by their authors. Please note however that I am using only accounts from the most long-serving and respected men and women.
Since writing that outline (and it is very basic, for that I apologise) I have come across some more information to add in. Carnes Lord describes the role of Congress too, but the message of his article was rather confused; on the one hand he described how Congressional interference adds another voice to a large number of powerful voices and so splits small-war efforts (gave the CIA, Defence, Treasury and State Departments as other instances), but on the other presented the Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) Board as an area where Congressional ‘interference’ has helped America to wage low-intensity wars. He then later on described how (in 1992) the LIC was a ‘dead letter’ department and was essentially useless. Given that he is the only author that I have read so far that has talked about the role of congress in small warfighting, I am rather confused as to how in fact it does influence American capacity to wage such wars.
The Vietnam Syndrome will be, I think, the central area of my essay. I recognise totally the need for constant evaluation and questioning of authors comments and I am going to evaluate the significance and actual impact of the Syndrome using different viewpoints. Robert M. Cassidy raises the idea that the Syndrome had more of an impact on military leaders than Vietnam actually had upon the American people: that decision makers were so scared of the Syndrome that they treated it with more trepidation that it infact needed to be. I will evaluate this argument, but from what I have read, his argument seems valid and easily supportable, especially in relation to the pullout from Somalia after the ambush of the Quick Reaction Force.
Ken, what is the One Third Rule please?
Finally guys, I recognise that you are the experts about this. Alot of you seemingly have had first-hand experience and/or write books on the issue that I am but glimpsing and accordingly I am sorry if anything of what I have said in this outline sounds... well... ridiculous. But I am a student: being wrong and having those with experience tell me in detail how and why I am is what I do, and it is how I will make this piece of writing better, so please PLEASE keep it up (in particular any authors or works that may be useful), you have already been incredibly helpful.

[William F. Owen]

Xander Day,

Having read what you have provided, I think you may be making a number of assumptions about the UK and COIN that are simply not supported by the historical and operational record.

Comparing US and UK performance, with reference to the US conduct of the Vietnam War(S) and UK colonial anti-terrorist operations is, in my opinion, an intellectual dead end. There are no useful grounds for comparison, bar that which is simplistic.

Why the US does not actually practice it's own doctrine and listens to the wrong folks may be a subject worthy of examination. IMO, US military thought is only applicable to the US and does not travel well.

However the same could be asked of the UK. Our post 1945 performance being far from stellar.

Having said that, well done for studying war and hopefully warfare as well.

[xander day]

Mr Owen, could you go into more depth as to what parts of my planning are incorrect. From what you said it seems like you know a lot of information that I would find very helpful, and it seems as though I might have missed these ideas in my reading!
Thanks!
Xander

[William F. Owen]

Mr Owen, could you go into more depth as to what parts of my planning are incorrect. From what you said it seems like you know a lot of information that I would find very helpful, and it seems as though I might have missed these ideas in my reading!

A.) call me Wilf and B.) I may not know more than you, however...

'How Does the Culture of the American Military Prevent Them From Waging Small Wars Effectively?'

I would suggest that in order to progress this effectively, you have to define small wars, and a measure of effectiveness.

A lot of criticism of the US conduct of Vietnam is based on the "if my mother had wheels, she would be a bus," line of thinking.

...but Vietnam was not a small war. It covered the whole spectrum of warfare from 1950 to 1979, and the US was only really there from 65-73 (well 56-75 for some!!)

When left to their own devices, the US are actually pretty/very good. ...and they do learn fast, and there is ample material to support this, but what they learn the do seem to forget. Why they do, may be worthy of some study.

I think a lot of US guys here would agree that they are constantly re-inventing the wheel and coming up with some very dubious concepts to support the latest fad, so that may be worth looking at.

Comparing the US to everyone else may not be useful and may be misleading. - but that's just my opinion.

[Ken White]

reinventing the wheel -- that's due to massive egos and arrogance "I don't need help, I have all the answers" is as American as the proverbial apple pie. We're arrogant twits at times...

On the fads, that's our short attention span and constant search for quicker and better ways to do things (never cheaper...).

War is a very human endeavor; the attitudes and proclivities of people permeate it and will influence the way they go about it. While people are people the world over, Americans are rather different from Europeans in many aspects of collective psyche.

[selil]

As a person working on my PhD dissertation I would mention to the council in general that there is an underlying push to make the dissertation a book. It is all about the book. If you don't have a book when you are done you can't get the faculty job. I already have the vaunted tenured faculty job so I've told THREE book publishers no. BEFORE the dissertation is even done. I don't agree with the pressure for the book but I do understand where the pressure is coming from.

For the record my dissertation is a "sample" of the work I've done in the area. Right now I'm writing the methods section and really really really (x10K) struggling with an a-typical approach to reversing a representational model which is non-empirical.

Xander, there are a variety of resources published by Air University at Maxwell in the 1980s. The books are all about low-intensity conflict and perceptions post Goldwater-Nichols Act on how small wars can be fought. You can get them for.... FREE... via PDF or postage if you can find their resources person.

[Entropy]

You might also want to do some searches of the DTIC archive as part of your literature review if nothing else.

[Ken White]

...Carnes Lord...described how Congressional interference adds another voice to a large number of powerful voices and so splits small-war efforts (gave the CIA, Defence, Treasury and State Departments as other instances), but on the other presented the Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) Board as an area where Congressional ‘interference’ has helped America to wage low-intensity wars. He then later on described how (in 1992) the LIC was a ‘dead letter’ department and was essentially useless.

The LIC Board is a beautiful example of how our essentially dysfunctional Congress interferes with good intentions that go astray. Congress directed the board br formed in the NSC, it was -- but it was overcome by events as USSOCOM was activated and the Assistant SecDef for SO and LIC was established. It was an approach that was probably not needed.

The bigger impact of Congress is in the funding of the Army. While they really fund all of DoD, they hang their hat on the clause in the Constitution that charges them with the responsibility to raise Armies. They use that clause to force single year appropriations all too often for purchases even though billions could be saved by going to multi-year contracting (this allows them to tinker with the budget every year and write in obscure clauses that direct certain things -- like the LIC Board that was not needed); they do not like to fund training very heavily -- training does not provide financial benefit to more than a very few of the various States and Congressional electoral Districts.

Congress can force the purchase of major items of equipment (i.e. big war stuff like Tanks) which produce jobs for the voters in many districts. It is said, only partly in jest, that the C-130 has sub-contractors in every Congressional district. It's more about them buying votes than it is about what's really required. In fairness, they do force some good things on occasion but I'd guess that's about a fourth or less of the time.

The Vietnam Syndrome will be, I think, the central area of my essay...Cassidy raises the idea that the Syndrome had more of an impact on military leaders than Vietnam actually had upon the American people: that decision makers were so scared of the Syndrome that they treated it with more trepidation that it infact needed to be.

It is my firm belief that Cassidy is absolutely correct -- and that the concern over bodybags also permeates the Armed Forces leadership to far too great an extent; we over emphasize force protection at the expense of mission accomplishment.

Ken, what is the One Third Rule please?

Simply, it states that in the US for any given war, about 1/3 will support it, 1/3 will accept it OR oppose it based on how well it is going at the time (i.e. they're fickle) and the remaining third will strongly oppose it. While there are those that dispute it, it is historically borne out. I'd also suggest that the 1/3 in opposition is composed of a hard core of true anti-war types but many will go to that end of the spectrum depending solely upon ideology. Here in the US, many Republicans opposed the Democratic Administration's forays into the Balkans while many Democrats opposed both Bush Republican Administration's entries in the ME.

There is also a two (some say three) year rule -- Americans will support a war for two or three years and then just want it over so they can get on with other things. Many also dispute that but again, it is historically validated -- even in WW II, by early 1944, everyone was tired of it. We are an impatient bunch and just want to get it fixed and get back to barbecueing in the back yard.

I personally am strongly convinced both 'rules' are valid and that this has a significant effect on your hypotheses. I also believe that the US can and should avoid small wars if at all possible for those reasons. That does not mean we should not know how to conduct them; we must and should be prepared to do so -- but they are not the US way of doing business so we should try to stay out of them if able. My sensing is that many in the US instinctively share this view but may not be able to or wish to articulate that.

[BayonetBrant]

one of the problems that I have with this dissertation is in sourcing material. I do not, unfortunately, have access to the most up to date books and journals, and as such I am having to rely upon many useful, but old, sources- of which the university library only has a limited number. Hence why what I have outlined may well sound re-hashed or done before.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/aul/periodicals/dodelecj.htm


That links gives you a pretty comprehensive listing of US military professional journals. At a minimum, it should help alleviate the source material problem.

[Steve Blair]

Linn's recent book "The Echo of Battle" gives a good, general overview of what he sees as US military culture. It's general, and I do have some quibbles with some of his points, but he does speak concisely to why the US military may appear to be poorly prepared for LIC in some instances.

[CR6]

Linn's recent book "The Echo of Battle" gives a good, general overview of what he sees as US military culture.

I had a similar thought Steve. BTW your mention of Linn's work on the Philippines here prompted me to check it out. Another good source for Xander for some context of how American forces have fought insurgents in the past.

[Steve Blair]

Linn's work on the Philippines is indeed stellar. He's a "must read" when it comes to this period, and how the Army dealt with one of its first overseas COIN-type efforts.

[xander day]

thanks for all of the help guys! am reducing the dis. down quite a bit and am reading (alot) of the sources that you lot linked me to. thanks a hell of a lot!