… for think tank 2.0:
A critique is fine, but the last sentence in the above is particularly flawed. If this is from the SSI’s Director of Research, it’s a good bet that the entire research agenda is hopelessly off-course. Perhaps the only way to rectify this is to flush the entire institute and start afresh.
and
Dr. Ucko’s research is focused on how well the U.S. is absorbing the right lessons from today’s ongoing conflicts, and how well DOD is institutionalizing the necessary changes across the doctrine, structure, training and education and equipment pillars of combat development. A student of American military culture, he notes our history of adapting to counterinsurgency campaigns, but then quickly discarding the lessons learned at the close of the war to return to our preferred conventional mode.
Imaging not giving a darn about what that institution thinks and having to defend yourself against the best from everywhere.
I mean, if you want McCaffery-caliber work, stick with the old way of doing things …
(H/Ts to Shlok, Zen, John)
Comments (3)
I’ve admired some SSI products but aside from the director’s dogmatic bias against 4GW ( and who knows what else) writing scholarly papers is not the only approach that should be taken.
How about something more along the DARPA problem-centric approach. Give some hypothetical objectives and let people figure out how to accomplish “X” in the most efficient, not necessarily military, ways - sort of like Van Riper attempted to do ( and was disallowed)and the two PLA colonels envisioned in Unrestricted Warfare. Another option would be long-term preemptive battlespace shaping along latent cultural and economic pathways
Posted by zenpundit![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://haftofthespear.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 24, 2008 10:47 PM
Posted on March 24, 2008 22:47
Could it be that 4GW does not lend itself well to in-depth theorizing, and so cannot find a happy home in heavyweight think tanks?
Yet it is an undeniable reality, I firmly believe.
Posted by Ralph H.![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://haftofthespear.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 25, 2008 9:47 AM
Posted on March 25, 2008 09:47
Excellent point Ralph, though having recently read a draft article written in academ-ese on something I thought I had a very firm grasp on, I have to say that if one was so inclined they could probably make 4GW so heavy as to be impenetrable. ;-)
Posted by Michael Tanji![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://haftofthespear.com/nav-commenters.gif)
|
March 25, 2008 11:08 AM
Posted on March 25, 2008 11:08