dissertation help please! US military culture and small wars.

[marct]

Hi John,

I think we're saying pretty much the same things, at least as far as the general readership is concerned, and you've certainly illustrated the spread as a result of 'net technologies. My point, and it is related, is that more people in the general population are now tossing around parts of the debate with little or no understanding of it, and for totally different (usually political) purposes. While I would agree that sites such as SWJ/C and the CAC blog have increased the "transparency", I suspect that once it hits the 'political' (loosely construed) audience, it gets increasingly misunderstood and manipulated.

Cheers,

Marc

[John T. Fishel]

The interesting aspect of your comment is what happens when the hoi poloi get hold of it. Of course, boobs make hay for political purposes which cheapens the debate. But other new players are not part of the boobocracy - they are serious amateurs and even professionals in realted fields. I wonder if we would have found you a couple of decades ago, assuming you were olde enough to play at that time. More to the point, do the serious new players ourweigh the boobs?

Cheers

John

[Sigaba]

My point, and it is related, is that more people in the general population are now tossing around parts of the debate with little or no understanding of it, and for totally different (usually political) purposes. While I would agree that sites such as SWJ/C and the CAC blog have increased the "transparency", I suspect that once it hits the 'political' (loosely construed) audience, it gets increasingly misunderstood and manipulated.

The interesting aspect of your comment is what happens when the hoi poloi get hold of it. Of course, boobs make hay for political purposes which cheapens the debate. But other new players are not part of the boobocracy - they are serious amateurs and even professionals in realted fields. I wonder if we would have found you a couple of decades ago, assuming you were olde enough to play at that time. More to the point, do the serious new players ourweigh the boobs?

I don't know if there's ever been a time in American history where the lines of debate were not blurred, the topics not bowdlerized, and the facts not manipulated for one political purpose or another. Americans' hostility towards professionals is as old as America itself.

Were I more articulate, I'd describe concisely the debate as taking place in four interlocking/overlapping spheres.

• strategic culture--which includes civilian policymakers, actively involved law makers (i.e. those who sit on relevant committees), academics, and civilian experts (e.g. members of think tanks). This concept is borrowing from a formulation offered by Michael Geyer, a historian, but I'm offering the following nuance by suggesting a distinct sphere for:
• service culture--which includes professional servicemen and women up and down their respective chains of command (in this model, each service has its own sub culture and each sub culture is broken down into other spheres such as branch of service)
• political culture--this would be the sphere John T. Fishel and marct discuss in their posts quoted above.
• popular culture--this sphere includes products mass produced by the entertainment industry but also other popular cultural practices as well (e.g. the gaming community, the re-enactment community, and so on).

MOO, present-day debate over national security policy works better when the first two spheres exert the majority of the influence shaping the discussion. However, my reading of history suggests instances where the debate has been reshaped by the latter two spheres.

Sometimes, this reshaping has proven disastrous. The "longing" anticipation with which many Europeans viewed the approaching storm clouds of World War I is a good example. One might also point to America's experience in Vietnam where the political and popular debate negatively impacted opportunities for more careful debate and, perhaps, victory.

At other times, the reshaping has proven quite timely and ultimately beneficial. For instance, historians of the American Civil War have begun to focus on the role African Americans played in reshaping the nature of that conflict. These arguments political and popular in nature, meant that a war that began to preserve the union ended up being a war fought for more profound goals.

Returning to the OP.

Xander Day, I respectfully suggest that the conversation about your topic is a strong indication that your dissertation would greatly benefit from a clearer definition of terms, terms of debate, and refinement of your topic.

This suggestion is not meant as a criticism. On the contrary, it is to your credit that you can pose a question that can lead to such a sprawling discussion. [And wouldn't it be something if Xander Day never returns to this BB.]

But take it from one who knows--narrowing your focus and clarifying your terms can make your project more manageable.

My specific suggestions are:

• Define an interval for your study.
• Pick one armed service and one armed service only.
• Look before you leap. When considering your time period and service, do some advance research to gauge the availability of primary source material.
• Define your terms. What do you mean when you say "culture"? What is your vision of "effectiveness"? (On this last point, you may the three volume work Military Effectiveness edited by Millett and Murray useful--if you can find a copy. On the former point, volume 57, no, 5 of The Journal of Military History may help shape your thoughts on culture and war. [The issue in question is has a section devoted to that topic.]
• Define what you mean by "small wars." I think most members of this board understand what you mean, but will your audience? The U.S. has fought eleven wars. (Twelve, if you include the Indian Wars, and not everyone does.) How many of these conflicts were actually "big wars"? Who decides which war is big and which war is small?
• Look at other factors besides culture. As has been suggested above, an armed force's preferred method of fighting often takes a distant back seat to the direction of civilian leaders. If these considerations trump the board, does culture even matter? Or are we talking about a contest of cultures (as my four sphere model suggests)?
• Change your question. This suggestion is especially worthy of your consideration if you're writing in the field of history or you have historians in your audience. In its current configuration, your question suggests that there were clear answers at the time that the U.S. Army needed to do certain things and they didn't. This teleological approach is an open invitation for grumpy historians to play "stump the band" with you. If you don't know already, take my word that that's not a fun game to play when you're the stumpee.
• Document your sources and cite your references until your HDD and your committee screams "ENOUGH." At that point, do more documentation. Liddell Hart has made a terrible mess of things for those who study war. A part of cleaning up that mess means we've got to dot every "i" and cross every "t".
• Don't worry if it is right, just write. (This suggestion is from the do as I say, not as I do category.)
  
  HTH

[John T. Fishel]

good suggestions and comments. I might quibble with a few - since I am a political scientist, not a historian - but they are quibbles. Regarding comments, I would put both Marc and me in your strategic culture rather than your political culture. There is, of course, some overlap here. Where do we put John Nagl - or Michelle Flournoy both in and out of office?

Cheers

JohnT

[Sigaba]

good suggestions and comments. I might quibble with a few - since I am a political scientist, not a historian - but they are quibbles. Regarding comments, I would put both Marc and me in your strategic culture rather than your political culture. There is, of course, some overlap here. Where do we put John Nagl - or Michelle Flournoy both in and out of office?

Cheers

JohnT

JohnT--

Thank you for the compliment on my suggestions.

I agree that you and Marc would fit into the sphere of strategic culture as would Mr. Nagl and Ms. Flournoy.

My rule of thumb is that if one's goal is to advance the understanding, discussion and formulation of policy, I'd be inclined to think that person is situated in strategic culture. If one is looking to advance a political agenda and to trade horses, one's in political culture.

As noted, the spheres overlap and one's position can shift over time or on a given issue. All four spheres bring something to the table. (For what my two cents are worth, I have questions about the CNAS that will be answered over time.)

[John T. Fishel]

had, as one of its goals, to find jobs in the national security sector of the next Democratic Administration for its founders, a goal in which it succeeded admirably! That it survived and florished with new top leadersip is a credit to its founders. But where it goes will, of course, be determined by the actions it takes over time. I know that John N wants to be a policy player - he told me so before he joined CNAS.

Cheers

JohnT

[marct]

Hi Sigaba,

I would agree with John that most of your comments and suggestions are spot on. As for the overlapping spheres model of culture, it is certainly one way of looking at it although I prefer Malinowski's version based on institutions, but that's the Anthropologist in me speaking .

I hope that Xander is following this discussion !

I did want to add on to some of your specific suggestions - more elaboration than anything....

1. Use operational definitions: either adopt someone else's definition of a key term or create your own definition.

2. Draw a flow chart / systems model of your argument: this is useful for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it helps you clarify the sections in your argument. I'll note that it is usually quite acceptable to "black box" some of the nodes in such a model, defining them as "beyond the scope of this study".

3. Get your committee to sign off (in writing) on the model including the inevitable changes that will happen.

4. Drink lots of beer / scotch / wine with your committee members: This may sound like a joke, but it isn't - you will learn a lot more from them in an informal setting and a free-flow discussion over a few pints than you will in formal meetings.

5. Build yourself a support group crossing disciplines and, specifically, including people in the service you are studying. These people are your safety net that will (hopefully) stop you from making an idiot of yourself when you write (believe me, I know how easy that is to do !).

Cheers,

Marc