A Counter Terrorism reading list

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I tend to think that some of the lockstep "intellectual Fascism" crept in during the 1960s and simply gained momentum as the products of those first years entered academia themselves and couldn't deal with anyone who disagreed with either their ideas or the golden nuggets of wisdom that they'd been handed by their professors.

The timeline up here is about the same both for that reason and, in addition, because we (Canada) got so many American academics up here. Some were/are excellent, but they established a cultural vector here that I really dislike since it got tied in with Canadian identity politics (Damn American Cultural Imperialism! ).

One would expect a certain amount of "playing with ideas" in history as well, but in my (admittedly limited to 4 universities) experience I've only found that in a handful (as in two) professors. Most weren't interested in teaching even the basics of historical theory and technique until people were juniors or seniors, and by that point it was fairly useless as the students had already learned that the way to an A was to faithfully parrot anything the professor said...method or actual thinking be damned.

Yeah. My own experience with History as a discipline matches that; mostly taught to "inform" rather than for practitioners as it were. I remember getting into a discussion with a couple of history grad students who weren't even aware of the micro-historical school (Ginsberg et al.) and had been, well, the only way to say it, is epistemologically brain-washed. Scary stuff.

I was always a believer in giving people at least a grounding in the basics of method and theory, so that they had the tools for those "a-ha" moments when something came together for THEM and wasn't just handed to them as done by a professor.

Agreed, although I have noticed that a number of my colleagues, get really infuriated when I do that. Not that I care, particularly, but having one prof throw me up against a wall and berate me for teaching students to think was a very "illuminating" experience .

[marct]

Back on topic, again. I'd be interested to see what people think should be included with readings lists as a set of instructions and/or caveats.

[William F. Owen]

Back on topic, again. I'd be interested to see what people think should be included with readings lists as a set of instructions and/or caveats.

As a method to impart practical/useful knowledge, I submit a a reading list should:

a.) Refer to a discreet specific and definable subject. - "Falklands War. Land Operations," - with a defined purpose. "Conduct of Land Warfare."
b.) No more than 3-5 books.
c.) Detail what each book imparts as useful - thus "Describes the Battle of Goose Green in detail."
d.) Point out any serious flaws or omissions in each work.
e.) A list of 8-10 exam questions to be answered - "What was wrong with plan to land at Fitzroy?"
f.) Be part of wider course of study and discussion and not a stand alone task.

[MikeF]

As a method to impart practical/useful knowledge, I submit a a reading list should:

a.) Refer to a discreet specific and definable subject. - "Falklands War. Land Operations," - with a defined purpose. "Conduct of Land Warfare."
c.) Detail what each book imparts as useful - thus "Describes the Battle of Goose Green in detail."
d.) Point out any serious flaws or omissions in each work.
e.) A list of 8-10 exam questions to be answered - "What was wrong with plan to land at Fitzroy?"
f.) Be part of wider course of study and discussion and not a stand alone task.

Good points Wilf. I'd also add that some of the strongest and best works that I've read confront the counter-argument. Basically, the author says, "here's how others may disagree with me." He/She then defines the potential argument and does a point to counter-point using existing works to attempt refute it or he narrows the scope of the project to address specific circumstances. Kinda like playing chess against yourself. In some cases, this could be called a thorough literature review, but I think it's a bit more. It shows a wide range of thinking and reasoning that led the author to his particular beliefs.

v/r

Mike

[Steve Blair]

In terms of reading lists, I like starting with a couple of basic books about the discipline itself, and those from authors with possibly deviating opinions (and even from different 'eras'). Start 'em off early with the basic theory so that they can at least understand where some of the other readings may be coming from.

[marct]

In terms of reading lists, I like starting with a couple of basic books about the discipline itself, and those from authors with possibly deviating opinions (and even from different 'eras'). Start 'em off early with the basic theory so that they can at least understand where some of the other readings may be coming from.

As a method to impart practical/useful knowledge, I submit a a reading list should:

a.) Refer to a discreet specific and definable subject. - "Falklands War. Land Operations," - with a defined purpose. "Conduct of Land Warfare."
b.) No more than 3-5 books.
c.) Detail what each book imparts as useful - thus "Describes the Battle of Goose Green in detail."
d.) Point out any serious flaws or omissions in each work.
e.) A list of 8-10 exam questions to be answered - "What was wrong with plan to land at Fitzroy?"
f.) Be part of wider course of study and discussion and not a stand alone task.

I think there's a lot of good points and overlap, here. Mike, a really good literature review should do what you say although, in my experience, a lot of them set up the "opposition" as straw men.

If we were to slightly expand the subject or, rather, to situate it within the context of a "course" of some type, then I think we have a pretty good idea of how it should appear. Start with a quick and dirty theory / methods overview (i.e. paint a very broad picture) with an emphasis on the language used ("Centre of gravity? yeah, like Newton, man! Got it!!!!"), and then follow it up with Wilf's a.-e.

I'll admit, I aim to try and get my students to think and argue for themselves, so I would probably modify some of Wilf's points c & d a touch, probably along the lines of "This is why I find this useful. What in the work struck you as being useful for you? Why would we have different opinions of what is and is not useful?".... stuff like that.

Case in point; I'm teaching a COIN course in the summer, and what struck me about a particular work will, I have no doubt, be quite different from what would strike Mike who has actually been doing the stuff. Even if Mike and I actively colluded on "Why this work is important", we would both have flashes of insight while we were teaching that would be in our own areas of experience. Also, I wouldn't have the experience base to know, in my gut I mean, why something was important to Mike and vice versa. What would be really interesting is where we both went "Yeah, THIS is why it's important" and we were pointing to the same thing .

Which brings up something that has been churning in the back of my mind for a bit. If we were to take Wilf's list which, if I haven't said it yet is great, Wilf , and modify points c. & d. such that, say, four or five people from different backgrounds all pointed out the uses and the flaws of a given book, would that work better? (BTW, I'm assuming that there are some type of pocket bios for the people involved so that the students / readers would know where people are coming from).

Cheers,

Marc

[William F. Owen]

Which brings up something that has been churning in the back of my mind for a bit. If we were to take Wilf's list which, if I haven't said it yet is great, Wilf , and modify points c. & d. such that, say, four or five people from different backgrounds all pointed out the uses and the flaws of a given book, would that work better? (BTW, I'm assuming that there are some type of pocket bios for the people involved so that the students / readers would know where people are coming from).

Sounds like you made an OK idea into a good idea. Let me know how it works!

[marct]

Sounds like you made an OK idea into a good idea. Let me know how it works!

Hey, Wilf, if I end up using it, you are going to be one the guys I recruit to do the c. & d. sections ....

[MikeF]

I think there's a lot of good points and overlap, here. Mike, a really good literature review should do what you say although, in my experience, a lot of them set up the "opposition" as straw men.

We have the same problem in our MDMP (Military Decision Making Process) and TLPs (Troop Leading Procedures) during Enemy and Friendly Course of Action development. We're supposed to provide 3 options for the commander. Most take the easy way out and offer one with two strawmen. We cover up our intellectual lazyness with "bright shiny objects" to distract, we try to minimize complex issues by citing, "KISS- Keep it simple stupid." My own personal crusade is trying to explain that for the officer corps, our job is to do the hard, rigorous intellectual process in order to produce a simple plan.

Case in point; I'm teaching a COIN course in the summer, and what struck me about a particular work will, I have no doubt, be quite different from what would strike Mike who has actually been doing the stuff. Even if Mike and I actively colluded on "Why this work is important", we would both have flashes of insight while we were teaching that would be in our own areas of experience. Also, I wouldn't have the experience base to know, in my gut I mean, why something was important to Mike and vice versa. What would be really interesting is where we both went "Yeah, THIS is why it's important" and we were pointing to the same thing .

Conversely, without good academics to help me ask the right questions, teach me the prevalent theory, and help deconstruct and put back together my own experiences, then I'd still be using the F-word as a noun, verb, and adjective .

More to the point, in another thread I mentioned the CORE Lab at NPS as a good example of where to be- a "huddle" of theorists, academics, and practisioners founded by Dr. Nancy Roberts and Dr. Doug Borer. This works, but to date, based off the limited funding and manpower, it is limited to helping SOCOM. If I determine that I cannot go back into operations, then I'm going to pursue setting something up in NC at UNC or Duke to assist Bragg or something at USMA to assist the Regular Army.

v/r

Mike

[marct]

My own personal crusade is trying to explain that for the officer corps, our job is to do the hard, rigorous intellectual process in order to produce a simple plan.

"I'm sorry, I didn't have time to write a short letter". I always keep that in mind when I hear about the KISS principle. Writing something short, sharp and to the point is hard work that requires a lot of discipline (and beer ). It's not for the weak and lazy at all. It's also why I tell me students that whatever they write, I will read (no maximum page length); I'll also judge accordingly, which does scare some of them.....

Conversely, without good academics to help me ask the right questions, teach me the prevalent theory, and help deconstruct and put back together my own experiences, then I'd still be using the F-word as a noun, verb, and adjective .

You mean it isn't ?!?!?! Oh,...., er.... Drat!

The best thing, IMHO, that an academic can do for a practitioner isn't to "teach" them stuff, it is to sit back, listen to their stories, and ask them questions so that they build their own theories that can account for both what they are bringing to the table and what we bring. That, of course, doesn't apply to undergrads who have no experience ...... <GRIN>

More to the point, in another thread I mentioned the CORE Lab at NPS as a good example of where to be- a "huddle" of theorists, academics, and practisioners founded by Dr. Nancy Roberts and Dr. Doug Borer. This works, but to date, based off the limited funding and manpower, it is limited to helping SOCOM. If I determine that I cannot go back into operations, then I'm going to pursue setting something up in NC at UNC or Duke to assist Bragg or something at USMA to assist the Regular Army.

Yeah, I remember you mentioning it. It sounds wonderful [ wistful sounds of longing....... ]