Comments on: Defence Academy swansong? And the Ali, Tony and Gordon show

By: David Betz

David Betz — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:09:04 +0000

Yes, I like Gareev. Coincidentally I was looking at Kipp’s translation of Gareev’s If War Comes Tomorrow? recently and I must say for a thing written in the mid-90s about the future of war it stands up pretty well. Beats the hell out of Owens’ Lifting the Fog of War at any rate.

Speaking of Russian generals though, I think the fellow we admitted a shared admiration for was Akhromeyev who was also no slouch intellectually but whom I admired for having the power of conviction. He came back from retirement to support the coup against Gorbachev and when it failed he killed himself. Compared to the other coup-plotters (drunken and feckless, generally), and to the Soviet elite by and large (cheerfully transitioning from Soviet oligopoly to post-Soviet kleptocracy), I always thought that noteworthy. I don’t recall anyone else falling on their sword.

By: Pericles

Pericles — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 19:56:40 +0000

Hi Dave
No, that was just a piece that took my fancy, I’ve always liked reading Gareev, as memory serves we both shared a kind of admiration for the guy. Which is indirectly kind of also what I was getting at-directed research is not terrible per se, but it’s not why most people become academics, and it’s not necessarily going to produce terribly inspired work. If you liked the article, you’re most welcome to pilfer it for ideas/arguments, and anything that is good about it, dare I say it, is a product of the fact I wasn’t compelled to look at that particular subject by anybody. I genuinely admired the ARAG people, both because they produced some good product to deadlines, they had some true giants in the field who were just quietly always very very good (Charles Blandy for example), but also because they took away the pressure that one in DSD always felt could potentially be turned on us to be more ‘relevant.’ I do think there is a broader question raised by all of this as well about where in the UK one should position a RAND-style organisation, because we probably do need one. I just think it would be a real mistake by contrast to assume you can instead double-hat all lecturing academics to work on doctrine, but I fear it may come to look like an increasingly attractive ‘austerity’ measure. I hope I’m wrong.

By: David Betz

David Betz — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:01:12 +0000

Pericles, was your piece on the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan directed research or a topic which just took your fancy? I really liked it. Used it in my COIN course last week. In fact I’ve drawn from it quite a few ideas from it which I will use from a debate we’re doing here on the 23rd on ‘what does success in Afghanistan look like?’ It’s me, MGEN Gordon Messenger and Theo Farrell. I’m planning to say that if we could manage it as well as the Soviets did we should be be relieved at the lucky break. There are worse ways to leave–ones which it would prove much more difficult to portray as any sort of success. I read somewhere Boris Gromov quoted as arguing that it was vital that we stay–or at least not be seen to scuttle from the place in unseemly haste.

By: Pericles

Pericles — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:12:53 +0000

The crux of the matter here for King’s is that the loss of ARAG will lead the MoD to put more pressure on King’s own DSD department to produce more soul-destroying directed research. Kings have treated DSD as a cash cow for years, but the only thing that makes it semi-bearable to work there has been preservation of the traditional academic freedom to conduct independent research which doesn’t necessarily have immediate contemporary relevance. The real cause of complaint here I suspect is that what KCL deliver at JSCSC is about to be put into sharp focus by the loss of the ‘spare capacity’ represented by ARAG.

By: One-eyed navalist

One-eyed navalist — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 17:40:12 +0000

Off message – but I’d like to draw attention to this week’s Private Eye where KCL and JSCSC receive front-page billing! I wonder which are the ‘historians’ who this has caused concern to?

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:56:20 +0000

Rob, I agree with your assessment of Campbell’s capacity for personal reflection. On Sunday he looked like someone for whom the penny has dropped on the specific issue of intelligence ‘doubt’ and thus the very real prospect of a misleading of Parliament; a question Tony Blair also deflected at the Chilcot Inquiry, when the phrase, ‘your doubt’ was put to him. For Campbell, the previous certainties of his position (the hubris) must feel as if they are being whipped away – we’ve all been there in our lives, albeit on a somewhat different scale.

In another environment (i.e. not a TV interview), had Campbell not paused in order to gain composure, one could quite easily imagine him pleading for sentencing leniency instead.