The U.S. military, if it is to measure up to its future responsibilities as an effective instrument of statecraft and a trusted institution of society, must embark on the path of thoroughgoing transformation. This means truly sweeping overhaul, not the marginal incremental change that has characterized the self-justifying, self-deluding rhetoric of "defense transformation" to date.
The international environment the U.S. faces and is destined to continue facing in the years ahead requires a military significantly different from the one we now have. What we have, arguably and at best, is a militarily effective military: an instrument of force, designed and able only to wage war — usually disproportionately, often indiscriminately — on its own preferred terms on behalf of those in power...
That there would be widespread strategic and civic illiteracy in the military should come as no surprise to anyone truly familiar with the institution and its deeply entrenched tradition of anti-intellectualism. In a society that is itself anti-intellectual, the military — a demonstrably action-oriented, physical culture — stands out as being especially so. Notwithstanding the fact that the military has an extensive professional schooling system and also underwrites civilian graduate schooling for many of its officers, it remains institutionally indifferent at best, hostile at worst, to intellectual pursuits. Education, with its focus on intellectual development, invariably takes a distant back seat in the military to training, with its focus on skill development, subject-matter familiarization and topical immediacy. The constant tension that exists in military schools between military and academic priorities consistently favors the former. Academic job assignments, for students and faculty alike, at military or civilian schools, are widely eschewed as a low-priority, unproductive, career-diverting cost (rather than a worthy investment) that comes at the expense of higher priority, more productive, more career-enhancing, institutionally more essential operational assignments. The handful of individuals in uniform who actually seek to write for publication must, even today, submit their work to internal clearance review — always, ostensibly, for security reasons — before public release. Doctrine, long a defining hallmark of military praxis, imposes a suffocatingly pervasive overlay of forced standardization and routinization on virtually every facet of military life. And political ideology (predominantly conservative) is an ever-present, if latent, intellectual crutch for the many in uniform who seek nothing more than reaffirmation and reinforcement of their pre-established core beliefs.
Collectively, these things severely retard free thought and free expression throughout the institution. Nothing so angers those in uniform and puts them on the defensive as the suggestion that they are representative — or captive — of the so-called military mind. Such defensiveness owes to the painfulness of truth. If the military is to extricate itself from the fact that its members are afflicted by a self-imposed common mindset that is unimaginative, reactive, ossified, even pedestrian, it must create a central space for intellectuals and intellectualization. Intellectual stagnation, in fact, threatens to be the military's undoing in a future where success will be determined far more by brains than by brawn...
On an e-mail discussion group David Gurney; Editor, Joint Force Quarterly; takes exception and granted SWJ permission to publish his response:
It seems to be a rite of passage for former military personnel pursuing a second career in academia to establish their bona fides by endorsing the threadbare stereotype of anti-intellectualism in the armed forces. That Greg Foster extends this malady to the general population generously confirms the heroism of academics from coast-to-coast. More now than ever before (thanks to technology), I see Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, & Marines engaged in distance learning and seminar studies in the minimal time available in the face of duties where incompetence can precipitate death and organizational failure. Our self-styled intellectuals exhibit a remarkable failure of imagination (and in Greg's case, amnesia) when they diagnose military hostility to intellectual development. It is laughable in general, yet occasional artifacts are eagerly marshaled to reinforce the charge, not least because of its rhetorical utility in university and think tank circles.
To my mind, Greg's greatest error--in an essay chock full of them--concerns doctrine. For Professor Foster to characterize doctrine as a "suffocatingly pervasive overlay of forced standardization and routinization on virtually every facet of military life" is as specious a flight of fancy as anything I have read of late. I reply with conviction that ignorance of doctrine (especially joint doctrine) is endemic in the armed forces and easily eclipses "anti-intellectualism" as a problem. Doctrine is not prescriptive; only dilettantes regard it so.
Allow me to conclude my objections (confined to a single one of Greg's "ten deeply rooted features of established military culture") with his misapprehension of writers in the armed forces. When Greg asserts that there are only a "handful of individuals in uniform who actually seek to write for publication" he reveals surprising ignorance of the facts. I receive more than a hundred manuscripts each month from military authors and my Book Review Editor has to beat military petitioners off with a stick! When one considers the plethora of military publications (many dozens!), whether technical, tactical, functional, or broadly military, the lie is given to such an uninformed claim. Similarly, Greg is out of his depth when he implies that security reviews are tailored to impede communication with the public. Security & classification problems are frequent and sometimes dangerous; these reviews are one of my greatest burdens as editor of JFQ, but they are essential and those who deny it lack either imagination or experience.
Comments
Fighting words at KoW!
<em>"Despite <a href="http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2010/01/true-transformation-a-response… to the contrary</a> from the editor of Joint Forces Quarterly (second half of the linked post), I would agree with the assertion that the US military - or at least the Army, with which I am most familiar - is institutionally anti-intellectual..."</em>
The <a href=http://kingsofwar.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/us-army-capstone-concept/>li… at the KoW thread</a> mentioned in the post directs to this thread. See full post for context.
I dont think most who read Prof. Fosters article really take issue with some of his opinions as much as the tone he wrote it in. I think the military is always transforming itself, it may not meet our opinions or vision of transformation but it has transformed and will continue to transform as best as a large organization with its own bureaucracy can.
"What we need is a strategically effective military: an instrument of power capable of fulfilling the larger aims of society and even of humanity"... .
Ok, whose society and definition of humanity are we talking about? Many think that any endeavor that we take on should represent our societys values or our definition of humanity. This is usually perceived as American arrogance by the host nation. We cannot make the Afghans, Iraqis or anyone else for that matter into our own self image. If we do this, our strategy will fail.
Prof. Foster goes on to say that we should somehow "demilitarize the military" that sounds somewhat oxymoron to me. I dont get it. Maybe someone can break it down into "knuckle-draggerese" for me.
Anti-intellectualism in our military, are you kidding? Does anybody really think that the military is anti- intellectual? We have become over intellectual in my opinion, so much so that we have so many new definitions to describe the conflict or the components of conflict that nobody really knows what the other is talking about. Every year new buzz words or slogans pop up mostly from the academic world and some "green suiter" starts regurgitating the new term he just learned and soon it's every where. Weve over-complicated things. I could go on but wont, some of you know what I'm talking about and each of us probably has our own opinions based on our own experiences.
Hmm? Change to become strategic leaders vice followers (or our political leaders), eetc? Oh really? I remember two events that suggest this will never happen, at least not directly. The first was at my graduation from USMA where the guest speaker was the SECARMY under Jimmy Carter, when the he told us, in so many words, "your job is to do what we (the civilian leadership) tell you to do; we care little for what you think of our positions and decisions". The second occured when I was at the Army War College twenty years later when a Clinton Administration Under Secretary of the Army told us in so many words, "shut up, when we want your opinion we will let you know". No, we have a long difficult history of civil-military relations that will never really change. The best we can hope for is to select and promote to flag rank competent men and women of character who win the respect of the American people as selfless warriors who provide honest and objective advice. I also think fighting Service parochialism is an admirable but impossible goal, not so long as tradition and service competition for funding remains as it is currently.
"4. From civic illiteracy to civic literacy. ... there should be no question about the essential importance of fully understanding the content, intent and underlying philosophical foundations of that document."
It takes two to tango.
"Faced, as they inevitably will be, with heightened potential for all manner of military interventions abroad ..., with the increased blurring of boundaries between military, paramilitary, police and intelligence functions, and with growing temptations for those in power to employ a willfully compliant, capability-emboldened military for sundry domestic security purposes, military personnel will be confronted constantly by constitutional questions and dilemmas they ignore only at the institutions peril."
Hello? When in an undeveloped country, there is no large pool of DoS/DoJ/FBI folks to get help from. "Capability-emboldened"? Where is the commander in theater that feels emboldened due to large amounts of resources?
"Sundry domestic security purposes" means what? Border security? Transportation/critical facility security? Where are the military folks that were mobilized after 9/11? They aren't in any airport I've been through. The TSA (Thousands Standing Around) now has that job. There is something called Posse Commitatus. Get smart on it.
" Yet query uniformed professionals, junior or senior in rank, on civic matters affecting and affected by the military -- civilian control, war powers, the rule of law, habeas corpus, free speech and assembly, due process, equal protection, search and seizure -- and the degree of illiteracy is disturbingly palpable."
When units are sent to operate domestically (like New Orleans or drug abatement) I would lay odds that they do get a good heaping of those legal issues, and the JAG officer is in the loop for quick use.
" Those in uniform cannot afford to assume, uncritically and unquestioningly, that their political masters will employ them only within the bounds of constitutional propriety, nor can they continue to ignore such matters themselves by deferring to military lawyers. The price of doing so will be the complete abnegation of their oath of office."
In summary, the military needs to be guardian of the republic, knowing the Constitution better than the founding fathers, knowing legal jurisprudence, control of evidence, ready to step in when the duly elected members of the republic have gone astray.
Good luck with that.
IntelTrooper says he's a Guardsman trying to balance a civilian career. Having spent most of my active-time in the reserves, I identify with the double-life that guardsmen and reservists live. They are literally trying to balance three full-time jobs: The Civilian Job, the Military Job, and Family. And that is just in "peace-time." At othertimes, the military overrides all of it.
All that aside -- I don't see the Military as being any less "anti-intellectual" or whatever than most civilian organizations. Yes, civilian employers generally want you to have a certain level of education before they hire you. But how many are genuinely willing to put out more money for education during working hours than the military?
Many civilian employers appear to offer compensation for education after hours -- as does the military -- but, except for the occasional trade show or "user Group" seminars (that are mostly marketing opportunities), civilian employers aren't USUALLY any more willing to pay for your education than is the military. In fact, my experience says that they are less so. Collecting on the offer of after-hours education compensation can be "iffy" if the subject matter doesn't apply to a current task.
"Civilian Employers" in this case includes the State Department or any other governmental organizations. The biggest purveyors of academic preparation in our society are professional academics.
Thanks to everyone who responded to my comment, especially David Gurney for his clarification. I apologize that I should have specified when I put "anti-intellectualism" in quotes that I don't think it's a useful term; it's inflammatory and, as David defined it, not applicable to the military.
Just to clarify "where I sit"-- Many military personnel are given opportunities for service-sponsored professional and graduate-type programs. I am not nor will I ever be one of those. I am 1) a National Guardsman and 2) enlisted. Thus, I am around other National Guard enlisted and officers most of the time. So whereas some are socialized directly into the military among other highly-educated, active duty officer types, I simply don't see that world. I have to squeeze in educational opportunities between balancing a civilian career, required military schools and deployments. So yes, we are seeing different parts of a <em>very</em> large elephant.
This quote from Professor Foster says it all:<blockquote>"The constant tension that exists in <b>military</b> schools between <b>military</b> and academic priorities consistently favors the former." (emphasis added /kw)</blockquote>Is it just me or is that a perfectly logical priority allocation...
I have to go with Gian and Schmedlap. The article is a polemic with some basis in fact that hyperbolically condemns a number of quietly intellectual Officers -- and a few enlisted folks -- because they don't do it <i>precisely</i> his way.
Military forces exist to employ violence; if significant intellectual power is required vice force, other agencies or activities may better provide that element. Been my observation it is best to select or procure the proper tool for the job at hand rather than trying to modify ones readily available tools to do things they were not designed to do...
Intel Trooper said:<blockquote>"Maybe that's just sour grapes on my part, but I think it's part of an institutional culture that distrusts civilian education (and civilians in general)."</blockquote>I don't think that's a sour grape comment; I think it's very true in most cases. I've been a pure civilian for 14 years (totally retired) or 32 years (retired from the military but worked for them as a civilian) depending on how you count. I still don't like civilians as a group. I also suggest that it's really sort of a mutual but minor antipathy thing as opposed to a purely anti civilian attitude.
Interestingly, most military people have been civilians but relatively few civilians today have been military. It is also interesting that much anti-military sentiment is in the vales of academe that are touted as an 'antidote' to military culture. ;)
Just a quick comment on David Gurney's comment:
<blockquote>Perhaps we are touching different parts of a big elephant, but my military experience exposed me to no anti-intellectual experiences. I can't account for contrary experiences elsewhere, but I can't deny them.</blockquote>
I have certainly had experiences that I could easily define as "anti-intellectual" in my interactions with members of the US military. The problem, to my mind, is that such a definition would be incorrect, at least in my case.
I haven't found the men and women I have interacted with to be "anti-thinking", but I have found some serious resistance to a) the language I have used, and b) the relative importance placed on "thinking".
Please note that I did <u>not</u> use the term "intellectual". There is a reason for this; the term has come into a serious amount of disrepute, and I have noticed a subtle distinction being applied, knowingly or unknowingly, between the use of the term "intellectual" and related terms such as "academic" and "scholar". I would suggest that the term "intellectual" has, increasingly, come to mean someone who "lives in their mind" with some seriously negative emotional connotations.
If that is so, and I believe it is, I would be characterized as an "anti-intellectual" when it comes to many areas for, I suspect, a similar reason to why IntelTrooper has had difficulties: there is no immediate perception that what they are saying has any immediate relevance.
Gregory Foster presents us with something of a top ten list of things to do to transform the military. Some of his points are right on while some are questionable. Right or wrong, all ten are tinged with and undertone of harshness as his utter contempt for the military bleeds through his text.
Still, however unable the author is to separate his emotions, his list warrants consideration as many of his arguments are salient.
The real problem with the article (aside from the vitriolic innuendos), however, is that despite the merit of many of his recommendations, Mr. Foster fails to deliver on his primary thesis. He calls for:
...a strategically effective military: an instrument of power capable of fulfilling the larger aims of society and even of humanity -- a self-contained, self-sufficient, full-service enterprise that can be projected over long distances and sustained for extended periods of time to deal successfully and conclusively with a full range of complex emergencies and
conditions.
Achieving such a capability will be a matter, first, of reorienting the military from one charged with preparing for and waging war to one whose purpose and preparations are to prevent war, to secure and preserve peace. These two profoundly different missions -- preparing for and waging war and securing and preserving peace -- call for profoundly different militaries.
Unfortunately, his list of ten items don't have anything specifically to do with achieving the type of military he calls for with the above statement. Most of his recommendations are advisable whether for a war-waging or peace-preserving military. I really don't understand what the difference between these two militaries is, and I don't think that Mr. Foster does either (or perhaps he just didn't mention it here).
Having been on multiple combat deployments, I'd be interested to know exactly what Mr. Foster envisions a peace-securing mission to look like. What type of capabilities and doctrine does he recommend we develop?
I think that Mr. Foster has confused policy and grand strategy with defense transformation. In an ideal world the military serves to preserve the peace, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the military is not capable of fighting wars. Rather, it is the skillful strategic employment (or threat of employment) within a broad grand strategic framework supported by governmental policy.
Now, within such a grand strategic framework focused on securing peace, the military should develop capabilities which support more limited, focused objectives (a scalpel) as well as broader, full spectrum combat objectives (broadsword). What those capabilities should be is beyond this forum, but intelligence, civil affairs, information operations, humanitarian assistance, foreign internal defense, and special operations all come to mind.
MR
As IntelTrooper was unable to divine my point, I'll elaborate, beginning with a working definition of anti-intellectualism:
Hostility toward intellect, intellectuals, and related pursuits, usually expressed as the derision of education, philosophy, literature, art, and science. As political adjective, Anti-intellectual describes an education system emphasizing minimal academic accomplishment, and a government who formulate public policy without the advice of academics and their scholarship.
This in no way characterizes the armed forces of the United States, which from the very beginning discriminates among applicants on the basis of academic performance and aptitude testing. My Marines were institutionally incentivized to take out MCI courses in order to improve their cutting scores for promotion. The examples are legion.
I can't begin to address where IntelTrooper sits, but my military experience was punctuated by constant pressure to take correspondence courses, attend local extension seminars, and work through reading lists formally published by the Commandant of the Marine Corps. Consequently, I completed Amphibious Warfare School, USMC Command & Staff, and the Naval War College 3-year by correspondence and seminar before I was in residence at ACSC, SAASS, and ICAF. Career Monitors/Detailers emphasized the need for continuing education as a promotion discriminator from our earliest unpleasant conversations. :)
IntelTrooper further imagines a red flag in regard to the amount of off-duty time available for continuing education. Pardon the obvious, but service in the armed forces isn't just a job, it is a calling. For those in combat specialties, much "off-duty" time is devoted to mastering critical vocational education and training (physical & mental). I grant that many military personnel are not in specialties where vocational error precipitates injury, death, and organizational failure, but many are and the hours can be long. As a Harrier pilot, my burden was emergency procedures and order of battle memorization, for others it's something else.
Perhaps we are touching different parts of a big elephant, but my military experience exposed me to no anti-intellectual experiences. I can't account for contrary experiences elsewhere, but I can't deny them.
Cordially,
David
<blockquote>The handmaiden of intolerance is aggression, long considered a martial virtue at the very core of the military ethos. To quip, however facetiously, that the military is in the business of killing people and breaking things is to confront the prevailing military image of itself. This self-image is why lethality is an unquestioned design feature of most military capabilities. It is why "war fighting" and "war fighter" are uncritically internalized expressions of self-identity in the contemporary military lexicon.</blockquote>
Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't the role in the US of the military to offer a credible threat and, if necessary, application of violence? Speaking as an out of shape academic, I far prefer having a military that is lethal to the intolerant fanatics who are trying to destroy my culture, society and academic freedom (well, what remains of it!).
While there is certainly some validity in this remark
<blockquote>In the postmodern media age we inhabit, where imagery and symbolism reign and the negative effects of violence are magnified exponentially, there is an overriding requirement for disciplined restraint -- the conscious willingness to refrain from the preferred use of violence, other than as a last resort born of necessity.</blockquote>
what validity there may be disappears with the simple problematic of what defines a "last resort" and where does the necessity arise? In the simplest of terms, look like a victim and someone will be glad to help re-inforce your self image!
Walking softly is fine, but do try to make sure that you are carrying a big stick!
Foster's assessment of anti-intellectualism is on par with any rant that I've heard from a recently-demoted PFC about why someone in his chain of command is incompetent or how the Army screwed him. The difference is that Foster uses more multi-syllabic words, less profanity, and better grammar. Congratulations to him for airing an opinion.
Gurney at least uses anecdote to back up his rebuttal, but I have to take issue with this...
<blockquote><em>More now than ever before (thanks to technology), I see Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, & Marines engaged in distance learning and seminar studies in the minimal time available in the face of duties where incompetence can precipitate death and organizational failure.</em></blockquote>
How do we know that is a counterpoint to any claims of anti-intellectualism? College credit = promotion points. Is it the pursuit of knowledge and self-development, or just pursuit of promotion points? In the absence of empirical data, I, like the authors cited, fall back upon my experience and have to say that I saw very little of such efforts made for anything other than promotion points or similar resume enhancement. That is not an intellectual pursuit.
I thought David Gurney's critique was spot-on.
I also thought that the notion brought out in Fosters piece of "disciplined restraint" on a theoretical and even practical level to be oxymoronic (a fundamental contradiction) in war. Yet this piece by Foster is emblematic of the New American Way of War, or Rupert Smith's "war amongst the people." To be sure the American Army needs fundamental transformation, but not in the direction of a kinder, gentler Army to police the American empire that is premised on "restraint." What happens when we get the call to go and do combat with a sophisticated enemy that fights beyond the emplacement of IEDs and small arms attacks? If the empire is to be policed so be it, but we better start with an Army that is transformed in the direction of better combined arms warfare and not toward stability and Coin operations. But it is epistles like Foster's that continue to push the American Army down that wrongheaded path.
gian
I enjoy the back and forth between critics and apologists, especially when someone makes an accusation of "anti-intellectualism." The standard apologetic response is to fire back a list of individual exceptions. This one is particularly telling, in my opinion:
<blockquote>I see Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, & Marines engaged in distance learning and seminar studies in the minimal time available in the face of duties where incompetence can precipitate death and organizational failure.</blockquote>
I'm not entirely sure what this point means, but the fact that there is "minimal time available" for Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to take part in studies should be a red flag.
In my personal experience, the number of times I watched eyes glaze over, roll, or sneer as I attempted to share some social science principle that would be helpful in understanding our operational environment and the insurgency far outweigh the times that I saw anyone genuinely try to understand what I was saying. Maybe that's just sour grapes on my part, but I think it's part of an institutional culture that distrusts civilian education (and civilians in general).
There are significant and important parts of the military which do value education, innovation, and change to the point of creating opportunities for servicemembers to take part in such processes. From my perspective, those parts are far away from where I sit.