A Counter Terrorism reading list

[marct]

Hi Mike,

Another serious question to consider is "when in my career do I read certain books?"

This is a phenomena that is coming to fruition in the business world now- most undergrad students are highly recommended to go work for a couple of years before pursuing an MBA. The payoff of the advanced learning is much greater once someone has some experience under their belts. I think the same holds true for the military. To whit, as a cadet, Clausewitz and Sun Tzu were gibberish to me. As far as CT goes, to the experienced practisioner, academic, or the interested layman, I'd recommend anything by McCormick or Arquilla.

This is a really good point. One of my "complaints" with some of my colleagues is that they take an exclusionary version of this; the "Oh that's too hard for you to understand dear... Just read my book about it...". Mike, I'll make you a bet that even if Sun Tsu and Clausewitz were "gibberish" to you as a cadet, somewhere along the line you got hit with an "A ha!" experience and went "Damn! So THAT'S what he was talking about!!!". It may not make sense when you are reading it, but your brain stores it and, when a pattern gets matched, you already have an interpretive framework sitting in the back of your mind. "Evil", yeah, but useful, too .

I agree, the payoff in terms of time vs. actual "learning" is much greater after you have experience under your belt. Sometimes, however, that can backfire on you as well. For example, I've had some students who were in their 30's who got totally indignant over a reading not because they disagreed with it, but because they were truly mad that they had never seen it before! The "Why didn't anyone TELL me this?!?!" reaction.

Marc, I imagine having you as a senior advisor is gruelling. Thanks. I'm sunk in deep depression over anything that I've ever written. Now, I know why your students drink so much . Damn anthropologists and their ubiquitous observations.

LOL - you wouldn't believe how much tea I drink with my students, either . Yeah, I can be gruelling as a senior advisor, mainly because I don't let my students get away with handing in Cole's Notes versions. The "drinking", and it's much more of a set up a safe space type thing which for many Canadians means a pub (drinking age in Ontario, BTW, is 19), is really all about encouraging people to play with ideas and not be afraid of doing that.

[Ken White]

...is really all about encouraging people to play with ideas and not be afraid of doing that.

that, to me, totally unreasonable fear. I do understand how and why 'human systems / bureaucracies' foster and encourage that fear but not why anyone would succumb to that really rather shortsighted, self protective prompting...

Excellent and perceptive post, Marc.

[marct]

that, to me, totally unreasonable fear. I do understand how and why 'human systems / bureaucracies' foster and encourage that fear but not why anyone would succumb to that really rather shortsighted, self protective prompting...

Especially when so much of it is an Emperor's New Clothes syndrome ! What really bugs me is that this is happening in universities which are supposed to be about playing with ideas; well, at least in the areas I teach in. Sometimes I think I should use this as an Introduction to life at university...

Excellent and perceptive post, Marc.

Thanks, Ken

[Steve Blair]

Especially when so much of it is an Emperor's New Clothes syndrome ! What really bugs me is that this is happening in universities which are supposed to be about playing with ideas; well, at least in the areas I teach in. Sometimes I think I should use this as an Introduction to life at university...

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. 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.

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.

[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]

This is a really good point. One of my "complaints" with some of my colleagues is that they take an exclusionary version of this; the "Oh that's too hard for you to understand dear... Just read my book about it...". Mike, I'll make you a bet that even if Sun Tsu and Clausewitz were "gibberish" to you as a cadet, somewhere along the line you got hit with an "A ha!" experience and went "Damn! So THAT'S what he was talking about!!!". It may not make sense when you are reading it, but your brain stores it and, when a pattern gets matched, you already have an interpretive framework sitting in the back of your mind. "Evil", yeah, but useful, too .

I agree, the payoff in terms of time vs. actual "learning" is much greater after you have experience under your belt. Sometimes, however, that can backfire on you as well. For example, I've had some students who were in their 30's who got totally indignant over a reading not because they disagreed with it, but because they were truly mad that they had never seen it before! The "Why didn't anyone TELL me this?!?!" reaction.

Excellent counter-point which drives to the broader question of "how do we learn?" There's some intruiging studies being done at Stanford and Berkley in conjuction with the California Public School systems examing this question. In some cases, teaching through alternative instruction and getting away from the industrial age construct of our current system, they've had success in pushing algebra and geometry down to the fourth and fifth grade level. To date, I've only heard about them through converstations. If and when they publish, I'll pass it on.

LOL - you wouldn't believe how much tea I drink with my students, either . Yeah, I can be gruelling as a senior advisor, mainly because I don't let my students get away with handing in Cole's Notes versions. The "drinking", and it's much more of a set up a safe space type thing which for many Canadians means a pub (drinking age in Ontario, BTW, is 19), is really all about encouraging people to play with ideas and not be afraid of doing that.

I was just teasing. On a serious note, I've got some stuff coming your way for review in a couple of weeks (to keep me away from Cole's notes). Dr. Fishel is my primary editor. When he gives me the thumbs up, I'll send it to you. Specifically, I'm trying to explain the differences and distinctions between anthropologists and the counter-insurgent. In the most simplest form, y'all are attempting to observe, define, and describe a culture while we're(on the company level) trying to do enough of that to gain a rudementary understanding and then influence the system to accomplish our mission. MTF...

v/r

Mike

[marct]

Hi Mike,

Excellent counter-point which drives to the broader question of "how do we learn?"

Yup, and that's something that I have been looking at for a fair bit of time, now. There is some good stuff on alternate learning styles that I have used based on neuro-linguistic programming. Pretty simple stuff really; all about changing the sensory language you use when you talk based on audience feedback.

There's some intruiging studies being done at Stanford and Berkley in conjuction with the California Public School systems examing this question. In some cases, teaching through alternative instruction and getting away from the industrial age construct of our current system, they've had success in pushing algebra and geometry down to the fourth and fifth grade level. To date, I've only heard about them through converstations. If and when they publish, I'll pass it on.

I've come across some of it including this neat initiative - http://grou.ps/oercenter

Well worth looking at.

On a related note, one of my students last term was looking at the effects of introducing yoga into k-8 school systems. She had some really interesting evidence that it worked surprisingly well.

I was just teasing. On a serious note, I've got some stuff coming your way for review in a couple of weeks (to keep me away from Cole's notes). Dr. Fishel is my primary editor. When he gives me the thumbs up, I'll send it to you.

Sounds good, I'll look forward to it, Mike.

Specifically, I'm trying to explain the differences and distinctions between anthropologists and the counter-insurgent. In the most simplest form, y'all are attempting to observe, define, and describe a culture while we're(on the company level) trying to do enough of that to gain a rudementary understanding and then influence the system to accomplish our mission. MTF...

Sounds about right to me, although increasingly, say since the 1960's, Anthropologists have been involved in manipulating the systems they observe; in the name of "advocacy". Nothing odd about that, we've pretty much always manipulated the systems we observe . I suspect that the difference is more at the "formal culture" level than the operational level.