Military Totemism and its Impact on Small Wars

[marct]

Social History of Military Technology at ICOHTEC

One of the first ideas that pops into my mind, is how the concept of "elite" and "special forces" lends a certain machismo to those who practice the trade. I could explore how those within the various elite military communities use "combat fashion" to reinforce these ideas (to include the Special Forces "Truths".) I could also explore how others imitate the "combat fashion" to borrow their mystique; how both children and adults pose as SF in gameplay (airsoft and paintball) and how adults "pose" as SF personnel, even those adults with legitimate military careers, as well as those who have never been in the military, to the point of breaking the law in order to be mistaken as a SF "operator."

Hollywood goes to war: Fad, Fashion and the Star system in today's American Elite Units

Abstract: Strating in the 1920's, Hollwood produced a system of role-emulation. "the Star system", that was designed to draw in movie goers. This social system has since exapted out from Hollywood and has become a staple in American culture. One example of this, is the increasing prevalence of imitation of Elite military units - the "stars" of the military. From "the Green Berets" of the 1960s to "THe Unit" of today, the star system has had a profound effect on how the military is viewed.

Something like that? Actually, it's a really neat idea which has, to my mind, some interesting effects. For one thing, the focusing on "Elite" units comes at the expense of "non-Elite" units. I'm thinking here about the concept of "pride" which goes back to our discussions on regimental heritage. Another corollary is that the Star system has had a nasty tendancy to produce an amost superhero-esque set of expectations, which is antithetical to the sense of "dutiful individualism" that used to be a hallmark of both the US and all Anglo-derived cultures.

There are also some other interesting spin-offs. For example, there is a time expectation inherent such that the "stars" should be able to do the impossible in a couple of days. Another spin-off is in the almost knee jerk reaction to new problems - let's create a "new" elite unit to handle this particular problem (didn't the Nazi's do that in WWII?).

At any rate, that could be a really interesting paper.

I would also love to do a piece on modern Russian R&D/marketing of their military technology. As I stated earlier, I believe that some Russian combat equipment is fatally flawed in modern combat terms, but they persist in attempting to build and sell the best "kitchen toilet" in the world. And, amazingly, some countries are actually buying them....

Unfortunately, I do not know if I have the time and resources to do that one. References would be tough, I fear.

<wry grin>. Jane's would probbaly be your best source, at least for something that might approach an objective standard. At the same time, however, it would also be useful to take a look at the costs. After all, if I can get 5 T72's for the price of 1 M1A and I'm using them mainly against people armed with AKs, what the frak? The T72's will certainly do the job.

Marc

[selil]

An interesting point on the media and Hollywood aspects is that Audie Murphy was a real hero who leant his credibility ot the big screen based almost completely on his military record. A similar thread is the literally unknown service of James Stewart as a General in the Airforce. Then there is the analogous and infamous colonel in Apocalypse Now supposedly based on David Hackworth. These three examples show specific threads of social acceptance, and credibility.

[Steve Blair]

The Germans/Nazis didn't get into the creation of elite units per se[, although you did see them spring up as more of a component of internal political infighting (the Heer has one, so the Kriegsmarine must have one too...Goering's Luftwaffe was especially bad in this regard).

I would argue that the transitory nature of the Army's unit heritages these days, combined with constant personnel rotation, tends to make the elite units more stable and thus more available for mass media portraits. One example I can think of off the top of my head was the TV series "Tour of Duty." It started by following the activities of a line platoon in Vietnam, but once it went past a couple of seasons the unit found itself moved to SOG duties. Reasons? I think it had a great deal to do with wanting to keep the core cast together, which really couldn't be done in a normal Vietnam-type setting (with the 'tour of duty' the show was named for coming into effect). It was easier to move to SOG, where voluntary extensions were common along with repeat tours.

If you go back a bit further and look at the Frontier Western, you'll see that the cavalry units shown in John Ford's works (though never clearly identified by regiment) always had a backbone of long-serving personnel. It was clear that the characters had history with each other...something you see in the elite units shown on TV but do not see in the regular forces these days. You also saw this same effect in Combat, where the characters were there "for the duration."

It's hard from a writing standpoint to frame a good character study (which at the end of the day is what most good military movies and series turn into) when you KNOW that your entire cast will turn over after X amount of time. I'm not saying that the "star" factor doesn't exist, but rather putting out another, possibly parallel, explanation for the focus on elite units. By way of illustration, weren't "Rat Patrol" and "Combat" on during roughly the same time period? Good example of star versus line, I'd say...

[marct]

Totemism and the A. E. F.
Ralph Linton
American Anthropologist, New Series,Vol. 26,No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1924), pp. 296-300

Available at http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=000...3E2.0.CO%3B2-H if you have JSTOR access

Marc

[Tom Odom]

Hollywood goes to war: Fad, Fashion and the Star system in today's American Elite Units

Abstract: Strating in the 1920's, Hollwood produced a system of role-emulation. "the Star system", that was designed to draw in movie goers. This social system has since exapted out from Hollywood and has become a staple in American culture. One example of this, is the increasing prevalence of imitation of Elite military units - the "stars" of the military. From "the Green Berets" of the 1960s to "THe Unit" of today, the star system has had a profound effect on how the military is viewed.

Something like that? Actually, it's a really neat idea which has, to my mind, some interesting effects. For one thing, the focusing on "Elite" units comes at the expense of "non-Elite" units. I'm thinking here about the concept of "pride" which goes back to our discussions on regimental heritage. Another corollary is that the Star system has had a nasty tendancy to produce an amost superhero-esque set of expectations, which is antithetical to the sense of "dutiful individualism" that used to be a hallmark of both the US and all Anglo-derived cultures.

There are also some other interesting spin-offs. For example, there is a time expectation inherent such that the "stars" should be able to do the impossible in a couple of days. Another spin-off is in the almost knee jerk reaction to new problems - let's create a "new" elite unit to handle this particular problem (didn't the Nazi's do that in WWII?).

At any rate, that could be a really interesting paper.



<wry grin>. Jane's would probbaly be your best source, at least for something that might approach an objective standard. At the same time, however, it would also be useful to take a look at the costs. After all, if I can get 5 T72's for the price of 1 M1A and I'm using them mainly against people armed with AKs, what the frak? The T72's will certainly do the job.

Marc

Look at Roger Beaumont's book on Military Elites for ideas

See this CSI report as a start: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...r_4/csir_4.asp


Best

Tom

[marct]

Look at Roger Beaumont's book on Military Elites for ideas

See this CSI report as a start: http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resour...r_4/csir_4.asp


Best

Tom

Thanks, Tom. The CSI report is an interesting vignete and it certainly fits into both the star system and the (much) older stratified warrior system.

Marc

[carl]

As an example of military technical development being driven as strongly by cultural as by practical reasons I submit as a prime example the SINGLE SEAT F-22.

A large portion of the Air Force believes that a real fighter is flown by a single fighter pilot. If it is operated by a crew of two it can't be a real fighter. The F-22 was designed to be an air to air fighter so it would only have one seat and that was that.

So we have the most expensive, most complicated fighter in history; with the most extensive set of systems, sensors and weapons ever installed on a fighter and with previously unimagined aerodynamic perfomance being operated by one pilot. That pilot has fly the airplane, keep track of all the data, operate the systems and watch the world around him all at once and all by himself. When the day comes when the enemy makes it through to visual contact with the F-22 the pilot won't even have someone there to look out the back for him.

The airplane would be vastly more effective and have more potential for growth if it was a two seater. But, then it wouldn't really be a fighter.

[marct]

Good example, Carl!

[Steve Blair]

Carl, the AF has a history of this sort of behavior going back many years. The F-22 is just the latest example of this sort of totemic behavior on the part of the AF. It's a good example, as is the quest for the next strategic bomber (B-3, anyone?).

[marct]

Carl, the AF has a history of this sort of behavior going back many years. The F-22 is just the latest example of this sort of totemic behavior on the part of the AF. It's a good example, as is the quest for the next strategic bomber (B-3, anyone?).

<wry grin>So, I guess we should add in a dimension that considers how "discarnate" the totem is, with the AF rating fairly high, and the older British regiments rating fairly low.

Marc

[120mm]

Just got to thinking, and rereading the paper requirements and realized that we've "left the reservation" on the military technology aspect of the conference.

I've also been thinking along a line with which I am familiar: How about, What Color Is Your Kalashnikov? Military Small Arms as Art, and Art on Military Small Arms This paper would explore the history of fashion built into small arms' design as well as the decorations soldiers have put on their personal firearm throughout it's history.



Tons of references, and I don't think there is a monograph, yet, that addresses it directly.

Of course, I think a paper on web gear could be effectively sold to the conference based on it's cultural v. practical basis. And the US SF angle is reflected in their webbing. Queer Eye for the Army Guy Anyone?

[marct]

Hi 120mm,

I've also been thinking along a line with which I am familiar: How about, What Color Is Your Kalashnikov? Military Small Arms as Art, and Art on Military Small Arms This paper would explore the history of fashion built into small arms' design as well as the decorations soldiers have put on their personal firearm throughout it's history.

Tons of references, and I don't think there is a monograph, yet, that addresses it directly.

Of course, I think a paper on web gear could be effectively sold to the conference based on it's cultural v. practical basis. And the US SF angle is reflected in their webbing. Queer Eye for the Army Guy Anyone?

I certainly think that would "sell" .

Marc

[120mm]

Here is a summary of some thoughts I've had. I'm a little unclear on standards for references; most of my references will be through product catalogs, gov't documents, interviews, personal experiences and stuff I will dig up later.

What Color is Your Kalashnikov? Style, Fashion and Art In the Modern Military

A Paper designed to explore how culture influences the development and selection of individual military gear, to include small arms, in the modern military.

Historically, military weapons, armor and supporting gear has reflected society’s norms and fashions to varying degrees. The amount of organization and standardization has allowed greater and lesser degrees of individual style and fashion, depending on each society. Whereas a Frankish warrior’s arms and armor varied immensely in substance and style, a Roman legionnaire was more or less standard in appearance, even though there were uniform items which were culturally driven.

Beginning with industrialization and rationalization of forces in modern times, national military forces have become more and more monolithic in style. The pinnacle of standardization can be generalized in the US military forces in WWII, where soldiers were similarly equipped to a point where only a minority of special purpose personnel could be distinguished from the overall force. Starting with non-state actors since WWII, as well as the US Army in Viet Nam, standardization and uniformity in individual uniforms and gear has decreased in prevalence.

For those outside of the military subculture, modern military forces appear to be monolithic in style and pragmatic in substance, but in reality, modern military forces’ individual equipment is driven by style, fashion, culture and fads. The pursuit to look and be “in fashion” is strong within the military, and for some outside the military, imitation of these trends is very popular as well. Military personnel spend significant amounts of time and money to appear “up-to-date”, to the point of actually discarding useful equipment with slightly dated, or unpopular designs or camouflage patterns.

Individual weapons are equipped with a multitude of accessories and camouflage painting has reached the level of fine art. Entire internet forums exist for the sole purpose of showing off the accessorizing and camouflage painting of individual weapons.

References for the paper will include personal experience, interviews with producers of military personal equipment, product catalogs, end users of that equipment, as well as unclassified government documents.

Feel free to make suggestions.

[Tom Odom]

Queer Eye for the Army Guy

Go no farther than the French form fitting jump suit, especially the Legion/Naval Infantry variant (could be local modification), which features mid to high thigh length "shorts," complete with a tight crotch for that added je ne sais quois. Tres chic, n'est pas?

Tom

[marct]

Hi 120mm,

I think that looks really good. If you can actually access time stamped discussion forum threads about a particular fashion trend, then you would be able to actually show the negotiations going on, which would be really nice.

One minor quibble, and it's the academic in me

Beginning with industrialization and rationalization of forces in modern times, national military forces have become more and more monolithic in style.

Don't the beginings of "modern" military units go back to William the Silent in the late 16th century? Most units were highly standardized before the industrial revolution and, from my reading, all industrialization did was to make them drabber and "cheaper"; at least the combat uniforms.

You may want to distinguish between "combat fashion" and "dress fashion" as well - it looks to me like you are concentrating on "combat fashion". I have a feeling that the separation of combat from dress fashion will probably be crucial to your overall argument at some point.

Marc

[slapout9]

Tom, under the Future Warrior program (Natick Labs)the US soldier of the future will have an "Ensemble" of uniforms to wear for the the battlefield of the future. Some how an "Ensemble" of uniforms just doesn't sound very Army to me.

[jcustis]

120mm,

You're going to get the A/S crowd over at LF so mad at you...Let me know what reinforcing fires I could provide, as I love the idea!

[Jedburgh]

...I've also been thinking along a line with which I am familiar: How about, What Color Is Your Kalashnikov? Military Small Arms as Art, and Art on Military Small Arms This paper would explore the history of fashion built into small arms' design as well as the decorations soldiers have put on their personal firearm throughout it's history....

Here's one for you, a "personalized" AK from Jalalabad, Afghanistan:

[slapout9]

As we speak, here is a link from strategy page. Title Air force uniforms have fashion problems.



http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hti.../20061221.aspx

[Steve Blair]

Don't get me started on the AF uniforms!