Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently launched the Minerva Consortia, an initiative meant to involve American research universities in the global war on terrorism. The Defense Department and other government agencies will provide financial support to social scientists working on areas defined by the military as relevant to American national security. Gates claims that Minerva will rebuild the links between the defense establishment and American academia. These links, according to the defense secretary, were essential in the Cold War.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/09/3642559

As an Army Russian Foreign Area Officer, I applaud Ms Goldstein's call for a massive increase in language and area studies programs. The Army would greatly benefit from such an expansion, and both the soldiers and the civilians they encounter would be enlightened by getting to know those they serve and those who serve them. I was however amused by her statement that young officers and soldiers "would be exposed to a mixture of conflicting ideas and critical opinions". I have been exposed to much more open and honest debate in military circles than in civilian academia. It was a real eye-opener to me to return to college, shortly after commanding a tank company in Desert Storm, to study on an Army funded Master's program, at a time when the debate was raging over whether we should become involved in the conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Far from conflicting ideas and open debate, I found rigid doctrine and intolerance to ideas that did not originate from the ivory tower. Most of the students ate the doctrinaire pap being served to them by social scientists (many of whom had never left the safety of campus since arriving as starry eyed freshmen), like it was Turkish Delight. It was only the military (both officers like me and enlisted soldiers using their GI Bill) who said "wait a minute, that's not what I encountered in the real world; let's talk about this." We got a lot of encouragement from those professors to expand our horizons in the business school.

I think that Ms. Goldstein's idea should be embraced, but I think that it is the younger students and the faculty who will benefit most by being "exposed to a mixture of conflicting ideas and critical opinions" from people who have encountered the ugly truth of a world where just talking does not cut it; you have to build, plan, coordinate, compromise, and sometimes knock heads.

For those who doubt the openness to ideas and debate that exists in the military, just look at the brain trust that General Petraeus has assembled. The idea that the military is not open to ideas and debates probably comes from the fact that soldiers do not debate in the papers and on television, but believe me there is a healthy debate that goes on amongst staffs and commanders as they search for real solutions to real problems; but at some point the debate must end and a decision must be made. At that point the debate ends, differences are put away, and professional soldiers execute the decision like is was their own idea--would anyone really want a military that behaved otherwise?

I think that the key sentence in the article is

"There may be a better approach for involving the social sciences in the war on terrorism. What is really needed is a massive expansion of language programs, area studies programs, comparative cultural studies and policy-driven political science. "

with the emphasis on the word "and".

As an example, someone may have Japanese Great Grandparents, Grandparents, and Parents and also speak fluent Japanese but unless they actually understand the Japanese culture they will almost instantly brand themselves as "Gaijin".

The same applies (albeit to a lesser degree) to almost every culture other than the one that the person is brought up in. Heck, even Canadians and Americans who are almost as alike as peas in a pod on most levels can tell each other apart simply through "cultural gaffes" of such a minor nature that they are almost unnoticable.

The problem with not understanding (which is something completely different from "accepting") the values and logic of the "foreign" culture you are dealing with is that that almost invariably leads to an unstated assumption that that "foreign" culture is illogical and irrational. This, of course, can lead to making all sorts of disasterous errors - both militarily and diplomatically.

As an example of this, consider the Red Army during WWII. By all "reasonable" standards, the Red Army was ill trained, under equipped, and poorly led. On a "quality" scale, the German Army vastly outclassed the Red Army. What the leadership of the German Army didn't appreciate - until it was too late - was that the leadership of the Red Army understood that the Red Army had all the flexibility and sophistication of a bludgeon and used it as one should use a bludgeon rather than trying to pretend that it was a rapier. The German military leadership simply wrote the Red Army off as "crude" - while the Red Army leadership accepted the fact that the German Army was a rapier and was going to be used like one.

Regardless of the quality of a rapier, if you hit it hard enough and often enough with a bludgeon, it will break - and the German Army broke under the appropriately applied bludgeon strokes of the Red Army while the Red Army simply brought forward an almost endless supply of "bludgoneers" to replace those that the "rapier" had skewered.

I think the author takes her bias too far here. She assumes that because the Bush administration has failed on some issues--and agree that it has--that the administration shouldn't make any future plans or guideline for posterity. She is wrong here. The current SECDEF has been outstanding, and he has completely gained the trust of many Americans who had lost hope. Gates has been a light in a grim administration, and I think that this initiative, coupled with a more intense langauge and cultural development, can go a long way in helping us understand our enemies, and help those who would consider joining their ranks.