Keeping SWJ/SWC Relevant?

[Kevin23]

With drawdown's coming in Afpak along with the end of the War in Iraq, I feel we are at a crossroads over how to keep this site relevant going forward. I bring this issue up because I notice there has been an active dropoff in the number of articles on the main site, as well as the number of posts in the Council it's self recently.

Therefore, since I feel that SWJ/SWC has been such a valuable resource for both practitioners and students(like myself) of Small Wars. Espeically with debate and the exchange of information from those who have served in these types of conflicts, as well as those studying them, and who may face them in the future.

So I feel we are at a crossraods of how do we keep it relevant and a forum of discussion in regards to new challenges beyond Iraq & Afpak?

I'd like to hear the opinions of other's on here in terms of this issue, and what they think of the future of this site as well.

[davidbfpo]

Kevin23,

There is an earlier thread 'SWC disappointing' about a month ago, which I started after a Dutch comment:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=14620

As SWC has a US majority IMHO it reflects the end of Iraq (OIF) and the intention to draw-down in Afghanistan. Instead of being active commitments, even war-fighting, Small Wars are likely to become more political and some may wish to "lurk" and not comment.

[Bill Moore]

I hope the community doesn't feel OIF and OEF are the only small wars in the world worthy of discussion and study. I realize they're the only small wars that we recently sent thousands of troops of to, so it is only natural that there may be members and viewers from the U.S. and elsewhere that will visit less frequently or leave the community altogether. On the other hand, since OIF and OEF-A were deeply flawed from a policy stand point, so deeply flawed they were abberrations in the study of small wars, it will be good news for the study of small wars when they pass into history. Africa, Central Asia, S. Asia, SE Asia are teeming with small wars that our media doesn't cover, which is why it is important we attempt to increase the number of contributions from non-U.S. writers and participants. I think we probably have chased some off with our biases, especially the general bias towards the approach to small wars that has been propagated in FM 3-24. I have yet to see an article from a Thailand security force that discusses their small war in Southern Thailand, or their successful COIN operation against a communist insurgency in the 70s. There is amble room for African authors to contribute. Fortunately we're seeing articles from members who served in India's security forces, but it would be nice to see the same from Bangladesh, Nepal and Sri Lanka. There are plenty of other forums that address events in the world outside of Afghanistan and Iraq, but even those topics should remain of interest to professionals as their conflicts evolve over time.

I agree that membership will downsize, but I don't think and strongly hope the site doesn't fade away. It is too important, it is a great forum to exchange ideas, and have your ideas challenged in a forum that you'll never find in any of our professional institutions.

[MikeF]

We are only constrained by what authors submit.

Encourage others to send in submissions to submit@smallwarsjournal.com or mike@smallwarsjournal.com

[selil]

Small Wars Journal/Council has been invaluable in helping me modify and codify strategies for cyber warfare. I do fear that the "lessons learned" will be lost.

[jcustis]

Good judgement comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgement.

I saw this adage just this morning before checking here, and we do stand a lot to lose if the hard-won experience isn't memorialized for others to draw from in the future, and we don't change with the changing world. I do not, however, think the future is necessarily bleak as OIF ends and OEF begins to wind down. Plenty of new challenges, but not bleak.

With the respective surges in either conflict, we also saw a surge in silliness, or rather a few people who came here with it in their head that they were going to see their avatar or name memorialized with a provocative article or string of posts that advanced their slanted agenda. I suppose we all have an agenda, but I hope that illustrates my point that there has been a signal-to-noise ratio that hopefully tilts towards more signal in the future. Down-sizing and refocus can very much be good things.

I can't remember exactly when it happened, but I made the recommendation to restructure the board to accommodate Iraq and Afghanistan (and other OEF hotspots) in greater detail, and that led to the structure you see in the Council right now. Other good restructuring came over time and across changes in servers, and I think we'll see other changes down the road as things morph and change for the better.

Specific interest will wane across some topics, and some forums may experience a virtual "death", but I'm confident there will be interest in all things small wars for as long as we fail to resolve our differences and interests through peaceful, constructive means.

To the specific question, we can keep the Council and Journal relevant by:

1) Sharing the Small Wars empire with folks may not have heard about the valuable content we have here. If we participate in other forums, linking in to content here can be the initial spark.

2) Submitting articles ourselves to add to the content. We all have our peculiar interests, and every article requires a touch of history that everyone here has a bit of insight into, sometimes in their own very unique way.

3) Supporting the SWJ/SWC financially. I have fired off a paypal donation or two in the past, and I certainly do not offer enough financial support to compensate for the brilliant content that I get to enjoy. I will pick up a Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy magazine on occasion, but I rarely do so nowadays because there is already excellent content to rummage through here. The writing competition of 2009 drew some excellent and insightful articles, and I hope another can be supported soon. I'd contribute to the next one in a heartbeat, if that support would allow for prizes that draw the best writers out there. I believe I'd also be quick to contribute towards the kitty if it resulted a specific anthology of articles surrounding a theme or two. If that strikes a chord with anyone reading this, make those thoughts known and I'm sure the SWJ team would consider the concept.

Regards,

JC

[carl]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

I have yet to see an article from a Thailand security force that discusses their small war in Southern Thailand, or their successful COIN operation against a communist insurgency in the 70s. There is amble room for African authors to contribute.

Bill, here is an article from a Journal past about Thai Village Security Teams.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art...or-afghanistan

I thought it was very good and pointed out a possible way to help things in Afghanistan.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Carl,

Bill, here is an article from a Journal past about Thai Village Security Teams.

Thanks. I do recall this article and it is good, but what I was trying to get across is I haven't seen an article from a Thai soldier or police officer on the conflict, so we can see it through their eyes. I suspect Jeff Moore isn't Thai

The reality is many cultures tend to prohibit independent thinking and views, and writing an article truly could be detrimental to their careers or worse. In that case we'll have to rely on other sources, but in those cases we miss an important point of view. I would love to see more Afghans write articles that are critical of our strategy in their country and explain why.

Listening to one another is important, but listening to voices from other countries is critical if we're serious about learning.

[carl]

Bill:

I wonder if we could take advantage of the huge immigrant community in the US. There are people from everywhere and I'll bet a surprising number have relevant experience or have relatives back in the old country who do. If somehow we could reach out to them, we could get around the reluctance to publish. What the heck would a guy who owns a sandwich shop and has a green card care about what the guys in the old country's HQ think.

For example, there are very large numbers of Vietnamese in the US, people from both sides of the line. I don't know if there are Vietnamese veterans associations around but if there are they could be contacted and asked if any of their people would like to submit material dealing with their experiences. The submissions wouldn't have to be in English if arrangements could be made for translation. That would be one of the keys to getting submissions, not having to write in English.

[G Martin]

I think we broaden the discussion and articles to include other examples of small wars- instead of being so OEF/OIF-specific- like others have said. That said, it is very difficult to get politicians and their staffs to get some deeper knowledge of those fights, much less fights that aren't in the news...

I'd echo getting funding up in order to sponsor writing competitions and also conferences- either unilateral or co-hosting or just participating in somehow. I personally haven't been involved in them- but I know there are some IW, etc. conferences held annually- and getting involved with those, maybe SWJ sponsoring a contributor or two or an editor participation/involvement/attendance might be beneficial.

[Dayuhan]

In many places it's difficult for serving members of a military (or those employed in government) to publish anything that deviates in any way from the official line, and in some places that might apply even to those in retirement. Not all military/political cultures are tolerant of dissent. It still might be possible to attract input from other stakeholders in conflict areas, who might have more freedom to express original views.

I've always wanted to see participation from current or past insurgents, though it's easier to talk about than to arrange.

For the journal it might be worth putting out groups of articles focused on specific regions or issues, asking experts to contribute and discuss varying viewpoints.

I think there may be a perception in some quarters that the site is primarily by and for Americans and those in the military, and that participants form outside those parameters are not as easily accepted. I don't think that perception is accurate at all, but as with so many perceptions it can have an impact even if it's not accurate. I'm not sure how that could be overcome, but it might help to have roundtable discussions on specific issues and invite or actively solicit participation from serious, informed foreign critics of US policy.

For the Council... I wouldn't say quality has declined, but I do notice that some of the people who were active participants when I joined, and whose posts made me want to join, are no longer active. That's probably inevitable; participants will always come and go. The question of how to build the participant base while maintaining quality will always be here, I suppose.

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Dayuhan

In many places it's difficult for serving members of a military (or those employed in government) to publish anything that deviates in any way from the official line, and in some places that might apply even to those in retirement.

The Armor and IIRC Infantry Journal appeared to be platforms for occasional dissenting opinions during the 90's, but according to my observation / memory this largely ceased to be true when the top forced the "we need to be quickly deployable for relevance = bureaucratical budget retainment" Stryker hysteria on the armor and infantry branches.
By that time the journals turned into propaganda outlets.

[jcustis]

It would be nice if the guys who keep the lights on here, Bill and Dave, could weigh in.

Where this place is, relative to where it was when things started out, and their vision of where they think it needs to go, it pretty important.

It's also important to define relevancy. For whom? Academics, practitioners, hobbyists...everyone? That sets the context as well.

[Steve Blair]

Originally Posted by jcustis

It would be nice if the guys who keep the lights on here, Bill and Dave, could weigh in.

Where this place is, relative to where it was when things started out, and their vision of where they think it needs to go, it pretty important.

It's also important to define relevancy. For whom? Academics, practitioners, hobbyists...everyone? That sets the context as well.

Concur, but we should also remember that this same sort of thing happened after Vietnam. No more limited wars was the cry then, and we're seeing the same sort of thing now. We're also seeing a bit of rehash of "any good soldier can deal with guerrillas." Maybe yes, maybe no, but it's always helpful to have reminders of what can work and what is a really bad idea floating around somewhere.

[Dayuhan]

Winding down the "big small wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan might be an opportunity to devote more attention to smaller small wars around the world, including those in which the US is not an active participant. It might also be an opportunity to advance discussion of the policy issues surrounding the decisions to enter small wars or assist the combatants. There's no shortage of material for discussion there, and there will certainly be useful observations of Iraq and Afghanistan long after we leave.

[Hippofeet]

Sheesh. The world is on fire. If global financial situations don't take an upturn, there will be a ton of small wars. There is so much going on everywhere that just doesn't receive conveniently viewable coverage here. I like anything on here from someone who is actually doing things, although it is hard to tell, people don't really put their C.V. On every post. I was surprised to see this subject after a long absence, I was thinking that asymmetric warfare was the new norm, and SWJ in a great position to be right on it.

[davidbfpo]

I had this comment via a PM and have the author's consent to use this. It reflects their long-time membership and long absences from posting.

In my opinion, the vast majority of posts could be grouped into 3 bins: 1. submission of ideas and articles rejected by other publications, 2. retired mil folks with an axe to grind, 3. trigger pullers arguing over low tactical issues. While those discussions are interesting, I would rather see a discussion of more operational/strategic level items and issues. I have always appreciated the ability of members of the SWC to answer RFIs that no one else seem to be able to answer. I see SWC as a forum to try out ideas on an educated audience, thus tolerate responses that are predictable in order to get the one or two that are true gems. I would love to see discussions on what our options are regarding NATO, Israel, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, etc. I would like to see more historical analysis of past small wars and what the true lessons are/were, and of what utility they are to us today. Just a few thoughts.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by davidbfpo

I had this comment via a PM and have the author's consent to use this. It reflects their long-time membership and long absences from posting.

I am often amazed at the clarity of 'non-participants'!

The basic structure around here is good - Journal, blog and council. They have each developed a character of their own and as such should attract a different group of readers/contributors. The web stats would be the guide as to which attracts how much attention.

Within the council there should be a place for discussions on 'low level tactics' and individual weapons (for those interested) as well as opportunities to discuss or just read (lurk) stuff on different subjects.

Why are there so few contributers on the council? Perhaps the first is that people tend to post as themselves and (in true military fashion) are not prepared to speak out against the official line in open forum. There can't be a discussion where everyone agrees. Perhaps some want to use their presence here to boost their reputation (in some way). Then my favourite beef about moderators. Moderating online discussions is a skill - it is more guiding and setting a direction for the discussion than merely playing the quick-draw sheriff.

Finally, let and encourage people to find a home here for information of their personal interest (remembering this is not some preparation for a promotion exam where the stuff here is required reading). Let people enjoy themselves.

[Wyatt]

I hope the content stays around. Ive been using this site as reading since becoming part of the military and as I progress towards my first career goal, this site has given me resources and places to look for information on current conflicts, history and non us perspectives. Most everything we focus on is at the tactical level, even the "uw" stuff. For me personally, the debates help me frame much of what I've been exposed to in the mil more effectively.

Wyatt

[Ray]

I do hope that the SWJ/SWC continues to have the excellent article and posts that are current.

It is a treasure trove of opinions and commentaries as also links to other articles of import.

I don't think SWJ/ SWC can fade out.