Why no "War Studies" in the US?

**RoccoR** · 21 Jul 11,, 18:46

Albany Rifles, et al,

This is just my personal opinion, not a justification.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

I am well aware of all of those programs...and I'm a graduate of 2 of them.

(COMMENT)

As well am I:

The Intra-agency TSCM Program (1982).
The NDU/DCI Intermediate Executives, for the Management of ADP Facilities (1983)

I, as well, am a graduate of The Ohio State University; and am very proud to acknowledge that. And I remember the campus climate of the Vietnam period (while serving there), and the very different atmospheric with recent post-911/War on Terrorism time (having spent 7 years out of the last decade in the ME Region including all the glamor spots). And I've never been more disappointed in the civilian trained leadership since my days immediately after returning from Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Your discussion of senior leaders is niche but it does not apply across the academic spectrum. Those are specific training programs. I was referring to institutes of higher education where there is a robust academic study of military history and where you can graduate with at least a BA...several of these also support MA and PhD programs in the field.

(COMMENT)

I was speaking of this level (higher education) as well; whether that be a MA from the IMO Program (NDU), or a STRAT Intelligence (MA) Degree from the National Defense Intelligence College.

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

While there is good reason to understand the history of the subject (no question), there are those (like myself) that don't agree with the cloning of the officers that seems to be the outcome of the programs in effect today. This, I consider to be one of the most serious and inadvertent outcomes of the military education system.

But running a close second is the politicalization of the senior ranks; both in the military and foreign service. And history (lessons learned) is the first thing that are discarded in a strategic situation. Decisions are not based either on sound Military Decision Making Processes (MDMP) or National Security Decision Making Processes (NSDMP); both processes have been proven faulty. And both the MDMP and the NSDMP are driven by the civilian political leadership; the NSDMP directly, and the MDMP through indirect means. And that concerns me the most.

In the MBA Program, the first thing they beat into your head is the mantra "Maximize the Wealth of the Shareholder." It sounds harmless enough, yet in the real world - the implementation has lead to some serious events; including the ENRON Scandal, the near collapse of major Banking institution and financial markets, the outsources of many industries and jobs, and a serious reduction in the reinvestment in Americas infrastructure (just to name a few). This is very analogues to the weaknesses in the MDMP and the NSDMP that lead to Vietnam, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the evolving situation in Yemen (and a dozen other places I could name). And most of those decisions were made by well educated men and women (from The Whiz Kids to the PNAC) from the very best institutions; impeccable credentials. And the civilian educated decision drivers (the Washington Power Elite) have not, in my opinion, fell short in the understanding the historical topic. They were billed as the brightest and the best. Like the maximization theorem in the MBA program, these power brokers are in it for the influence and power they can attain.

You will, I trust, forgive me if I am a bit skeptical of promoting a program that might further adversely impact the decision making processes that have brought America to the point where it is today.

Again, just one man's opinion and concern.

Most Respectfully,
R

**Albany Rifles** · 21 Jul 11,, 19:51

Rocco

All of what you write may be true...but it is not in line with the core subject of this thread.

Kevin Brown wrote in May bemoaning that military history was dead as a subject on college campuses...the remainder of the thread discussion centered around correcting his misinterpretation and that in fact, according the the military history professional community, it is alive and well.

If you want to have the discussion you are referring to in your post I recommend you open a new thread...we can move your comments to that thread if you wish.

And as a side note Shek may disagree with you on the devaluation of military hsitory in the strategic strategic situation since the study of teh Civil War was core to his course work to become a strategic planner.

**Mihais** · 21 Jul 11,, 20:08

To be honest,I never heard of the CW researchers AR talk about.Nevertheless,he's the the foremost expert on CW on WAB,IMO,so its good to learn something new everyday.

As I see it,you two sirs are talking a bit past each other.If I understand AR right,he talks about some very particular fields of study.I speak without knowing the work of these authors,but the CW study contains a lot more than its military part.It's a defining moment in your nation's history.Even if the programs were dedicated to CW military history,it's still a very limited period.For example,the Indian Wars lessons are more valuable in our present COIN campaigns,as they were in Vietnam.

If I get Roccor right(by the way Sir,you have more schools than me

),he's more into a philosophy of war.That knowledge only comes,IMO,with a detailed study of war throughout the ages and conditions.
It happens that right now,I'm in a deep hate relation with acronyms,so pardon me if I don't go into MDMP et al.

**Stitch** · 22 Jul 11,, 06:49

I'm afraid I have very little to add, except to say that I majored in International Relations in college, and that half of my classes were in subjects such as War and Peace in the Nuclear Age, and American Defense and National Security; but I would say that US institutions still offer courses of higher education WRT "war studies", you just need to look for them.

**Albany Rifles** · 23 Jul 11,, 00:49

All,

1. I was not intending to stop discussion...I was just trying to keep it relevant.

2. While I brought up ACW scholars it was to only prove a point...I can talk others periods as well....and I am not trying to pee on Roccos's parade. We tend to be American centric but the studies are there.

**Mihais** · 23 Jul 11,, 06:26

Gotcha Sir.I'm more familiar with military efforts to study history and I believe them to be the best in the world.And free to read.

Loaded question and not one entirely ingenuous.How many attend military studies compared with women studies,minority studies and others like that?

**Shek** · 26 Aug 11,, 19:11

Originally Posted by Kevin Brown

One thing I've noticed by looking at many universities in the UK and maybe even Canada, is that they often have "War Studies" programs or very closely related areas of study that concentrate on military history, security and strategic studies, geopolitics etc.

However, when comparing US universities and colleges little in these academic focuses seems to exist outside the nation's military academies & colleges. As well as some schools concentrated in the South and Midwest, along with some small graduate departments at the Ivy Leagues like John Hopkins, Cornell, and Georgetown.

Little focus academically within departments like history, poli sci, and related fields seems to be on these areas. With many courses on military history, international security, and other areas appearing to be cut from the curriculum more and more, Vs. areas of study like gender studies, ethnic studies, labor history etc. In which alot of this appears be linked to hostility to the military within academia and anything related overall.

Time, Newsweek, or one of the big news publications had a piece on this same issue a while back, I can't remember the name of it. Well anyways it pretty much stated that military history, strategic studies, and other areas of academic study seem absent at most US universities and colleges. Despite the fact that there is a demand for such academic areas.

This issue which has wider roots, has interested me lately and has been mentioned on this forum before.

Even though I may have opened a can of worms here, but since this is the academic part of the forum. Why don't war studies programs have much presence within the US academic scene, despite at least some demand for such areas of study?

Kevin,
Having not looked at the specific content of "War Studies" concentrations/majors, I'd offer that it's an overly constricted description of a field of study. War is a subset of strategy, and to focus specifically on war is to potentially miss the forest from the trees. I don't know about the undergraduate level, but there are plenty of solid programs in "strategic studies" or "national security studies" available in the US at the graduate level.

**Shek** · 26 Aug 11,, 19:18

Originally Posted by Albany Rifles

Rocco

All of what you write may be true...but it is not in line with the core subject of this thread.

Kevin Brown wrote in May bemoaning that military history was dead as a subject on college campuses...the remainder of the thread discussion centered around correcting his misinterpretation and that in fact, according the the military history professional community, it is alive and well.

If you want to have the discussion you are referring to in your post I recommend you open a new thread...we can move your comments to that thread if you wish.

And as a side note Shek may disagree with you on the devaluation of military hsitory in the strategic strategic situation since the study of teh Civil War was core to his course work to become a strategic planner.

Military history is vital to the student of strategy and policy. It provides your case studies to evaluate strategic thought. However, a student of strategy must also be competent in other areas of study as well - economics, sociology, international relations, etc., and so military history is not enough. As an example, studying Bismark's role in creating Germany is a great example - studying how Prussia came to become a military might is vital to understanding the means that allowed Bismark to unite Germany. However, without understanding the role of balance of power politics then condemns a student of strictly military history to miss the lessons that resulted in Germany's defeat in WW I. It's not just about generating military power, but how that generation of power causes changes in the "ecosystem."

**zraver** · 27 Aug 11,, 05:45

Originally Posted by Shek

Military history is vital to the student of strategy and policy. It provides your case studies to evaluate strategic thought. However, a student of strategy must also be competent in other areas of study as well - economics, sociology, international relations, etc., and so military history is not enough. As an example, studying Bismark's role in creating Germany is a great example - studying how Prussia came to become a military might is vital to understanding the means that allowed Bismark to unite Germany. However, without understanding the role of balance of power politics then condemns a student of strictly military history to miss the lessons that resulted in Germany's defeat in WW I. It's not just about generating military power, but how that generation of power causes changes in the "ecosystem."

I dissagree, a good student of history is looking for more than dates and names but is looking for trends that stretch back into history and also foretell the future. The Austrian-Prussian War is a good example of the rise of Prussia. Bismark would have a much harder time, and Germany been a much more catious country except for the Salic Law prohibitions against female inheritnce stemming from French King Clovis I breaking up the Union of Great Britian and the Kingdom of Hannover.

Had that not happended, it is likely Bismark would have balked at taking on the British to beat Austria for control of the German Confederation.

**zraver** · 27 Aug 11,, 05:54

Originally Posted by Kevin Brown

Even though I may have opened a can of worms here, but since this is the academic part of the forum. Why don't war studies programs have much presence within the US academic scene, despite at least some demand for such areas of study?

I think Part of the reason is that the demand is supplied by the nations military and intelligence agencies for the most part. The various branches of the US Military and the alphabet soup of federal agencies have thier own programs and when the graduates of these programs leave federal service they often end in think tanks where the disparate but now combined pools of intellect can co-mix. Think the RAND Corporation, Council on Forgien Relations etc. There is not much of a niche in the US for these types of programs on the civilian side as the level of expertise needed to be proficient requires feild work as much as academic.

A pure student of war or war related fucntions is going to miss a lot of critical learning if they don't know war or its related functions first hand. We see this when politicans send in the boots. Conversly the one area where I think the civilian side can make a home for itself is in OOTW including pre and post conflict culturally relevant stablization plans. The military tends to shoot first, and the intelligence agenies tend to be overly concerned with political control. This had led the US up repeated blind alleys costing inumerable lives and untold billions. I once had a discussion with S-2 and it was his opinoon that few if any in the west understand the Pashtun Code- how well has that workd out for us.