Recruiting for SWC members because....

[Dayuhan]

First, how do we make this little corner of the internet grow? What types of people do we want to attract to it?

That is the question. Answers are a little harder to come by, of course. In this case it's not only about attracting new people. There's also the question of re-attracting members that have become less active or inactive. Speaking only for myself, many, probably most, of the members whose contributions led me to come here are no longer around. Having them back would be wonderful; having new people here would be equally wonderful. How to accomplish that... I wish I knew.

A start might be to ascertain what led people to be active here in the first place, and what leads them to become less active.

I'm a member of the H-Net Middle East Politics mailing list and I had to provide verification of my academic credentials, what my research interests were, and what I was hoping to gain. This may be overkill for SWC, but it is something to consider. Perhaps everyone can post, but if you do have some kind of academic of military related credential, adding it to your title so the community is aware? Maybe the Editors can maintain a list of folks with appropriate credentials to do book/article reviews?

If academic or military credentials were required, I'd never have been let in the door. One of the most appealing factors about SWJ (to me), from the start, was the blend of field experience and academic input in a mutually respectful environment.

I do have ideas on how to get more folks from the humanities over here.

I'd have nothing against having more people from the humanities, but I'd also like to see more people from the "field" side, particularly voices from outside the US.

A few other members have brought up concerns regarding viewpoints other than official' not being welcomed. Maybe this is a good time to have a broad discussion about this?

I'm about as far outside the official box as it's possible to be, and I've never found this to be the case. Of course views, official or other, will be scrutinized and criticized, but that the nature of a forum. I have never felt any sense that views from outside the military or the politically orthodox camps were at all unwelcome. Certain types of behavior are unwelcome, but those constraints are easy enough to meet.

Does the military really want to change or do they want to just check in the box?

I wouldn't know about "the military" as an institution, but there certainly seem to be people within that institution that want to explore and discuss change. I'm sure they face substantial inertia, but that is the nature of institutions. From the perspective of the forum, there seems no shortage of people on the inside who are willing to discuss change.

I have noticed that many of those with proposals for change from within the .mil camp tend to gravitate toward the Journal, rather than the Council... perhaps because publication in the Journal fits on a resume? I think that unfortunate, as the Council seems to me a better venue for continuing discussion. I confess to having had occasional fantasies about tossing a few advocates of "Design" into a coliseum with Wilf Owen, Fuchs and a few others.

Is the anti-intellectual culture myth or reality?

I've actually been accused of anti-intellectualism a few times, on the Journal side. There may be an anti-intellectual culture, but there also seems to be a culture (possibly a minority subculture) that greatly esteems intellectual display... the aforementioned apostles of "Design" might again appear as exhibit A. My own perception is that this subculture at time prioritizes intellectual trappings over intellectual rigor, and the repeated (and strained) invocations of quantum physics and postmodernism occasionally make me want to toss... but maybe I really am anti-intellectual. I would say that while there may be an overall anti-intellectual atmosphere, there are enough intellectual subcultures to sustain discussion, and enough field folks to keep the intellectual discussion anchored and honest.

While the 'Cycle of Bitching' is can be gratifying, it ultimately does nothing.

This is true, and it brings us back to the chicken/egg question: does the discussion become cyclical because there are so few participants, or have the participants dropped away because the discussion became cyclical? Probably a bit of both, I'd say.

These are just my suggestions and questions. I'm also willing to put my money where my mouth is and volunteer to get some of this rolling.

As would I, given some practical ideas about what might be done. I'm still looking for some.