On my way home yesterday I noticed this letter in The Times. As an air power skeptic I've sometimes toyed with similar idea. So, why not? Why not disband the RAF?
Sound off in comments, if you will.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Iraq War in hindsight
Apropos of a discussion that's been going on over on Prof Theo Farrell's blog about the Iraq War I just came across this testimony by Maj Gen Batiste who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq for a year. I don't think I've ever heard a more devastating indictment of a superior in one's resignation letter. Absolutely shattering criticism of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld. Have a look.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
How to read
Please excuse the patronizing title. I know you can read otherwise I'd not be worried you'd be offended by what I wrote. What I mean to point out is something hopefully more constructive and useful. In normal life we tend to think of reading as something which is done wholly and linearly. When we sit down to read a novel most of us start with page 1 and proceed all the way to the end in page order. We're less rigid about magazines and newspapers, perhaps selecting several articles of many, glancing around the sections to see what is most tempting, maybe reading the editorials, or sports before anything else, and so on. Academic reading is even less rigid than that: we rarely read anything wholly or linearly from pagge 1 to finish. I recall someone saying that for academic purposes reading a book is like 'gutting a fish'. The point is to rapidly strip out, understand and evaluate the structure of the argument (ie the 'bones'), identify the important sections of the text from the unimportant (ie the 'meat' from the 'guts')--what is important and unimportant will depend on what you need to get from the book, which will change. You don't start on page 1 of the text. First you do a 'smell test': do you recognize the author, who is the publisher? You check table of contents to get a sense of the structure. If your interest is piqued you may flip to and skim the introduction or the chapters that interest you. Or you scan the index to see what topics are covered and in what detail. You will want to makea judgment about the level of scholarship too which can often be gleaned quite quickly from looking at the extensiveness and appropriateness of the bibliography and especially the endnotes. Then you start to read the text skimmming some sections while reading others carefully, taking notes, cross-referencing within the work or with other texts. In short, academic reading is reading for a specific purpose: gaining information in order to build your knowledge and understanding. And to do thsi effectively you need to, first, employ the right 'tools' by which I mean the scholarly architecture of academic writings I have just described which tell you what kinds of data, theory and rhetoric is in the book and where, and, second, apply the appropriate technique by which I mean reading either very carefully, thuoghtfully and thoroughly with a view to commiting something to memory, making it a permanent part of your understanding, or preserving it (ie taking notes) for your own use later, or 'skimming' a text pulling out the crucial points, flagging areas for subsequent focus, or simply building a working familiarity with the author's main thinking. The trick is to be able to switch from one form to the other.
Personally, I read A LOT. And not just because it's a part of my day job. I read at home, at work, on the train. I read while I walk from Embankment station to the College on the Strand--the key is to know where you're going, keep one eye on the book, the other on obstacles 8-10 feet ahead (generally people get out of the way)--and I'd read on my bike on the way from Maidenhead station to my house if I could figure out a way to hold the book and the handlebars simultaneously. Basically, I read all the time I'm not doing something otherwise necessary to the sustainment of life which is a good habit to have for anyone interested in knowledge; but it's a practical necessity for MA students so if you are not similarly habituated you should work on being so. What's vital, however, is that you always ask yourself what am I reading this for? If it's general erudition then by all means read from cover to cover letting your mind wander and explore. Thsi is very pleasurable. But if you're reading to research an essay or doing a particular unit readings you need to be mercenary and unsentimental about it.
In other words, when you look at a unit's readings and see a half dozen articles, some book chapters and maybe a book or books to read in a week what is required is for you to make some quick judgments about what is to be skimmed and sampled. Unless you have extraordinary endurance and time on your hands do not sit down with a reading list systematically ticking off each item as you complete it. Also do not treat a reading list like the tablet handed to Moses by the Almighty. It's never the complete and final word. Always remember to browse around a subject. Unlike G*d you're teacher thinks more highly of you when you hand back the tablet saying 'thanks but I think you missed a few commandments; I've scribbled a few ideas in the margin...' Read, read, read. But read smart.
Personally, I read A LOT. And not just because it's a part of my day job. I read at home, at work, on the train. I read while I walk from Embankment station to the College on the Strand--the key is to know where you're going, keep one eye on the book, the other on obstacles 8-10 feet ahead (generally people get out of the way)--and I'd read on my bike on the way from Maidenhead station to my house if I could figure out a way to hold the book and the handlebars simultaneously. Basically, I read all the time I'm not doing something otherwise necessary to the sustainment of life which is a good habit to have for anyone interested in knowledge; but it's a practical necessity for MA students so if you are not similarly habituated you should work on being so. What's vital, however, is that you always ask yourself what am I reading this for? If it's general erudition then by all means read from cover to cover letting your mind wander and explore. Thsi is very pleasurable. But if you're reading to research an essay or doing a particular unit readings you need to be mercenary and unsentimental about it.
In other words, when you look at a unit's readings and see a half dozen articles, some book chapters and maybe a book or books to read in a week what is required is for you to make some quick judgments about what is to be skimmed and sampled. Unless you have extraordinary endurance and time on your hands do not sit down with a reading list systematically ticking off each item as you complete it. Also do not treat a reading list like the tablet handed to Moses by the Almighty. It's never the complete and final word. Always remember to browse around a subject. Unlike G*d you're teacher thinks more highly of you when you hand back the tablet saying 'thanks but I think you missed a few commandments; I've scribbled a few ideas in the margin...' Read, read, read. But read smart.
Information literacy
Students who are returning from last year may not have noticed in the 'home area' a new course on Information Literacy. I highly recommmend that you have a look at it. There's a lot of goood advicce in there concerning the use of ISS resources, doing bibliographic database searches and so on which you will find invaluable.
Friday, September 15, 2006
Inside Al Qaeda
This New Yorker article is very interesting reading on the internal workings of Al Qaeda.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
It would seem that I am Polish at heart
I just came across this bit of harmless fun if you've time to kill before the start of term. I must not be very consistent. The first time I did it the result was a deadheat between Poland and Finland which is OK too. But 88% Italian? Please! I love Italy but I'm experiencing some cognitive dissonance from the clashing of stereotypes: on the one hand I've got Polish cavalry tipping their lances at tanks; on the other hand I've got Italian tanks with 1 forward gear and 4 reverse.
 | You scored as Poland. Your army is Poland\'s army. Your tenacity will form a concept in the history of your nation and you\'re also ready to continue fighting even if your country is occupied by the enemy. Other nations that are included in this category are Greece, Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands.
In which World War 2 army you should have fought? created with QuizFarm.com |
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Salaam and salutations
Hello all:
Well, 'school' is about to start again. I'm looking forward to it. I'm always grateful for a break but then I'm always eager to start on something new. I hope that you will all enjoy this upcoming course. The general pattern of it is similar to what we did last year but obviously we're looking at morer contemporary issues.
Some of you know me already (and vice versa) from last year. Others do not, so let me say a few words about myself. I'm Canadian by nationality but I've lived in the UK since 1998, did my PhD here, have had two kids here(Charlie 2, Lily 1) and bought a house here. If nothing else the mortgage payments on the last means that I can never leave, although to be honest I have no intention of doing so anyway. I love my job. I can't imagine teaching anywhere or anything else. Basically, I feel very British--mind you my accent remains resolutely Canuck, evidently some things do not change for some people.
My academic interest is generally focussed on the conduct of contemporary warfare and, more specifically, on the intersection of what is called the technologically-oriented 'Revolution in Military Affairs' which is, I would argue, the apotheosis of the Western way of war, and irregular warfare, or insurgency, which I tend to think of as the antithesis of the Western way of war. I get preoccupied by seemingly banal questions like 'how does war work?' because it strikes me that as a tool of policy right now it doesn't work very well at all. There are complicated reasons for this but for my part I think they can be boiled down in three ways:
1. significant changes in technology have vastly increased the capacity of high-tech militaries to 'kill people and break things';
2. but this does not mean that victory is easier or cheaper to attain because alongside technological change in the conduct of warfare there have been equally significant non-technological changes which can be crudely summarized 'the East has solved the riddle of the Western way of war'--not by matching its traditional strengths but by bypassing them;
3. and, at the same time, victory or 'strategic success' is elusive because the current zeitgeist of the West is ambivalent or hostile to the notion of war as an instrument of politics in any form because rightly or wrongly, probably wrongly, it feels that it is beyond the need for strategic choice.
This being the case the kinds of things which I research and write about are a bit of a mixed bag. I think a lot about military technology, doctrine, culture and training--and that mostly in terms of land warfare because, for one, that's where wars are decided and, for another, because as a former infantryman I'm biased. I love the infantry, basically. I have a major interest in counterinsurgency and irregular warfare, as well as information warfare, which I've been writing about recently. And finally, I have a new but growing interest in ethics of war and the Just War tradition which in the past I have tended to ignore because it struck me that the principles of Just War were more often than not applied as a bludgeon to delegitimize and undermine warlike policies with which people disagreed. I've come to realize, however, that people like me who are interested in making war 'work' as a tool of policy have no chance of doing that without engaging in debate with those who are ambivalent or hostile to the notion. Which, of course, means learning the terms of ethical debate on war--a steep learning curve for me!
Personal interests: I enjoy swimming, climbing and running and generally being out of doors in bad weather. I love the idea of sailing arouond the world; unfortunately the reality is I get seasick on the Thames River if the wind is up; thus it has always been my dream one day to cruise the world by Zeppelin or submarine--whichever is steadiest. I find painting military miniatures very stress relieving. Oh and I love beer in rather the same way as, for example, fish love water. Bear that in mind if you're ever in London around marking time!
That's enough about me. How about you?
Well, 'school' is about to start again. I'm looking forward to it. I'm always grateful for a break but then I'm always eager to start on something new. I hope that you will all enjoy this upcoming course. The general pattern of it is similar to what we did last year but obviously we're looking at morer contemporary issues.
Some of you know me already (and vice versa) from last year. Others do not, so let me say a few words about myself. I'm Canadian by nationality but I've lived in the UK since 1998, did my PhD here, have had two kids here(Charlie 2, Lily 1) and bought a house here. If nothing else the mortgage payments on the last means that I can never leave, although to be honest I have no intention of doing so anyway. I love my job. I can't imagine teaching anywhere or anything else. Basically, I feel very British--mind you my accent remains resolutely Canuck, evidently some things do not change for some people.
My academic interest is generally focussed on the conduct of contemporary warfare and, more specifically, on the intersection of what is called the technologically-oriented 'Revolution in Military Affairs' which is, I would argue, the apotheosis of the Western way of war, and irregular warfare, or insurgency, which I tend to think of as the antithesis of the Western way of war. I get preoccupied by seemingly banal questions like 'how does war work?' because it strikes me that as a tool of policy right now it doesn't work very well at all. There are complicated reasons for this but for my part I think they can be boiled down in three ways:
1. significant changes in technology have vastly increased the capacity of high-tech militaries to 'kill people and break things';
2. but this does not mean that victory is easier or cheaper to attain because alongside technological change in the conduct of warfare there have been equally significant non-technological changes which can be crudely summarized 'the East has solved the riddle of the Western way of war'--not by matching its traditional strengths but by bypassing them;
3. and, at the same time, victory or 'strategic success' is elusive because the current zeitgeist of the West is ambivalent or hostile to the notion of war as an instrument of politics in any form because rightly or wrongly, probably wrongly, it feels that it is beyond the need for strategic choice.
This being the case the kinds of things which I research and write about are a bit of a mixed bag. I think a lot about military technology, doctrine, culture and training--and that mostly in terms of land warfare because, for one, that's where wars are decided and, for another, because as a former infantryman I'm biased. I love the infantry, basically. I have a major interest in counterinsurgency and irregular warfare, as well as information warfare, which I've been writing about recently. And finally, I have a new but growing interest in ethics of war and the Just War tradition which in the past I have tended to ignore because it struck me that the principles of Just War were more often than not applied as a bludgeon to delegitimize and undermine warlike policies with which people disagreed. I've come to realize, however, that people like me who are interested in making war 'work' as a tool of policy have no chance of doing that without engaging in debate with those who are ambivalent or hostile to the notion. Which, of course, means learning the terms of ethical debate on war--a steep learning curve for me!
Personal interests: I enjoy swimming, climbing and running and generally being out of doors in bad weather. I love the idea of sailing arouond the world; unfortunately the reality is I get seasick on the Thames River if the wind is up; thus it has always been my dream one day to cruise the world by Zeppelin or submarine--whichever is steadiest. I find painting military miniatures very stress relieving. Oh and I love beer in rather the same way as, for example, fish love water. Bear that in mind if you're ever in London around marking time!
That's enough about me. How about you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
