"Experts"

[Stan]

Hi Gian !
I fully concur; Colin’s piece deserves much more than two drive-bys. Mr. Peters would have been better served by introducing himself (which was requested and subsequently ignored).

There is however a good point herein that several individuals more than adequately addressed regarding so-called experts.

RTK’s post is food for thought, and one I can completely related to. I would add the caveat that ‘academically or documented’ experts are little more than ‘subject matter’ experts. I don’t fully agree that one should have boots on the ground for millenniums in order to be considered an expert (there), but it certainly doesn’t hurt to have those years (there on the ground) when all is said and done.

I think there's a fine line between experts and people that think they know what they're doing. Further, I think this applies to any discipline or field of study.

For instance, as an instructor of reconnaissance tactics, I probably have more knowledge in the field of study than 99% of the Army. That doesn't mean I know 99% of what there is to know about reconnaissance.

I do have one comment in closing however. An individual with no military background simply cannot (in any way shape or form) relate to or conclude something was ‘fumbled or messed up’ during a firefight, massive refugee crisis, social and political upheaval, or overtaking an enemy position.

Regards, Stan

[Rex Brynen]

I do have one comment in closing however. An individual with no military background simply cannot (in any way shape or form) relate to or conclude something was ‘fumbled or messed up’ during a firefight, massive refugee crisis, social and political upheaval, or overtaking an enemy position.

I tend to agree, Stan--at least in the sense that academic experts or journalists sometimes draw military conclusions on issues where they have little real experience and knowledge.

As an aside, it also applies to military folks who draw quick conclusions about diplomats or aid workers messing up when they've never tried to build a sustainable multinational consensus or deal with the dilemmas of emergency food aid vs negative effects on local agricultural production (etc).

For that reason, I'm a big fan of cross-postings, interdisciplinary and interdepartmental training processes, secondments, academics spending time in the applied/policy world, etc.

[Stan]

Hey Rex!

I tend to agree, Stan--at least in the sense that academic experts or journalists sometimes draw military conclusions on issues where they have little real experience and knowledge.

As an aside, it also applies to military folks who draw quick conclusions about diplomats or aid workers messing up when they've never tried to build a sustainable multinational consensus or deal with the dilemmas of emergency food aid vs negative effects on local agricultural production (etc).

For that reason, I'm a big fan of cross-postings, interdisciplinary and interdepartmental training processes, secondments, academics spending time in the applied/policy world, etc.

I couldn’t agree more. We collectively have some serious lessons to learn. Tom and I were ‘blessed’ with being around true to life interdepartmental ‘foxtroting’, that I have ever experienced in my life. That said, I did take a few lessons with me and they have paid off 10-fold.

[Abu Suleyman]

Mr. Kahl (http://www2.cla.umn.edu/reach/Fall06/Kahl.html) has spent around a year at DoD studying the rule of law in war and spent 4 days in Iraq (per his own testimony). He has 0 years military experience and is a brand new assistant professor at Georgetown.

The word expert gets tossed around a lot in the media, and in general it says more about the opinion of one person than about the qualifications of another.

However I must strongly object to this ad homenim attack. Whether or not someone has been to war or not does not make or unmake his expertise. If that were the case, no one living could be an expert on the Civil War, because they weren't there. Moreover, just being there is not always an advantage. What about the E-4 that is coming off of his third tour, but never saw anything above what was immediately around him? Does he have more knowledge about COIN than someone who has studied it for years, taking advantage of the experience of hundreds and with the perspective that some distance brings? That would be like saying a father has more knowledge about conception than the childless obstetrician, "Because he's been there done that."

There are a lot of things that can be learned by study. That said, little I know of, is not enhanced with personal experience on the ground. Nevertheless, there is a need for thoughtful study as well as ground pounding experience, and we should not care which one actually comes up with the solution. It was General of the Army Marshall who never fought in WWII that had more to do with the winning strategy than any one else (I concede that this point is debatable, but maintain that it is valid for the illustration).

If experience on the ground is so superior, and it may well be, then it should be easy for the experienced of which we have no lack, to refute Dr. Kahl's statements on the subject. However, if he has good points then his points should be taken in stride, and adopted. I for one, like shaving and praying when and how I want.