TransTracker on 2008-10-04
In my dissertation, I wrote about military theory as "articulation." That is the idea that military theory seeks to define and link certain elements in the world in a way that makes sense. Especially in the twenttieth century, military theory has often served to define and link military understandings of science, technology, society, military, and war. These efforts often begin with the assumption that changes in any one of these areas should mirror/be mirrored by changes in the others. The elements either are or should be in sync or congruent, should change in a "coperiodized" way. Elements out of sync are typically identified as a problem in need of solution.
This is exactly the reasoning we see in Hammes' introduction to his recommended reading list. His three short paragraphs provide one of the most concise renderings of this narrative. In effect, he is saying that there have been changes in technology and science that have led to changes in society and war. Unfortunately, he says, the U.S. military has not kept pace, has not changed its "internal" thinking in a way that is in sync with changes in these other elements of the world. Another common piece of this narrative is the claim that others (e.g. businesses, terrorists, insurgents, etc.) have recognized changes and adapted themselves appropriately while the U.S. military has not. Thus, the need for action, the need to "read different" so as to think differently and, ultimately, act differently, in a way that is congruent with the world "out there."
Public Stiky Notes
This is exactly the reasoning we see in Hammes' introduction to his recommended reading list. His three short paragraphs provide one of the most concise renderings of this narrative. In effect, he is saying that there have been changes in technology and science that have led to changes in society and war. Unfortunately, he says, the U.S. military has not kept pace, has not changed its "internal" thinking in a way that is in sync with changes in these other elements of the world. Another common piece of this narrative is the claim that others (e.g. businesses, terrorists, insurgents, etc.) have recognized changes and adapted themselves appropriately while the U.S. military has not. Thus, the need for action, the need to "read different" so as to think differently and, ultimately, act differently, in a way that is congruent with the world "out there."
Would you like to comment?
Join Diigo for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.