The Register has picked up on KOW’s input on the Defence Green Paper, see ‘MOD turns to bloggers for advice on UK defence policy‘. They’ve got some nice things to say (also thanks for noticing in the first place):
Whatever your opinion on these issues, it seems that if you really want to influence British defence policy you’d best get on over and start commenting on the armchair-general web portal du jour, as the MoD and defence minister Bob Ainsworth informs us that ‘preparation of this paper benefited from discussion on the Kings of War blog’.
But it comes with a healthy dose of snark too. That’s OK. We do snark too. However, I would like to respond to a couple of misapprehensions in the piece (I’d do so on the Register itself but you seem to have to register to comment there, which I am too lazy to do).
First, yes, this is a blog and its diverse contributors are therefore bloggers. But that’s not the day job. Our contributors at present include 6 PhDs and 3 almost-done PhDs; collectively, we’ve published 10-15 books (more maybe, I haven’t counted), dozens of chapters in books, articles in scholarly journals, mongraphs, reports etc and so on, all in the area of war studies (more or less). We’re scholars, in other words, that’s what pays the mortgage; blogging is for fun and for more informal engagement with the wider scholarly and policy community interested in the same things we are–war, and stuff. I don’t mind being called an ‘armchair general’–I am in fact writing this from the comfort of an armchair in my conservatory; but I prefer ‘Armchair Master Corporal’ because it is more accurate, that being the lofty height of military command which I once held.
Second, the credit to KOW in the Green Paper says ‘Preparation of this paper, for example, benefited from discussion on the Kings of War blog.’ And what’s wrong with that? I’m glad that they got something out of it, though I have to say I found the discussion a bit ‘meandering and discursive‘ and, overall, I think most of us concluded that they weren’t asking the right questions. This too is not surprising for as it says in the conclusion of the Green Paper the question we really want answered is the subject of the Review:
The Review must be based on the global role we wish to play, the relative role of the Armed Forces and the resources we are willing to dedicate to them. This Government believes that the UK’s interests are best served by continuing to play an active global role, including through the use of armed force when required.
Personally, I find it frustrating and unforgivable that eight years into the War on Terror, and twelve years after the last SDR (which was never fully implemented), with the UK come and gone from Iraq already, looking for the door in Afghanistan, and pondering antsily the domestic threats to our security as we near the 2012 Olympics (how much do you reckon that AQ’s calendar has a big red mark on summer 2012–London ‘be there or be square’?) we haven’t already thought through these things. I want to get on with it. Now would not be soon enough. But you can’t blame the strategy unit for the fact that politics is concerned with other things. The cart is not allowed to drive the horse even when the horse is a broken down, clueless nag one step from the glue factory. Anyway, I applaud this effort to consult the public and think it’s kind of cool that KOW seems to them a forum worth doing that in. I particularly like the commentable version of the Green Paper they’ve now put on the Web. I’m curious to see what they get. And to see what they do with it.I’m actually not sure of the value of crowdsourcing. According to some it’s the way of the future; according to other it’s rubbish. Either way, content or process, this exercise is grist for the mill.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Heh. I get plenty worse from my students. Lewis, why not sign up? We can explain what a frigate is for…
Don’t take this guy so seriously, just a blogger.
Well, The Register is one of the most widely read tech outlets in the UK and beyond, and is a little bit more than a blog. Like, there’s a real company behind them and everything. Don’t be fooled by the web-only presence, they actually pay journalists, and hold events, and play with Lego.
I know — I was just trying to be funny. Usually doesn’t work. You know, German. I prefer The INQ
So was I. That didn’t work either. Maybe it was the Lego reference?
Yes, I thought you were making fun of Playmobil.
Blogging and scholarship is one of my most favorite topics ever!
So, there was this paper that demonstrated a majority of potential medical residency applicants, in the states anyway, used an online search – Google and the like – to research programs that they might like to attend. (As their initial introduction to the programs.) When one of my residents and I surveyed the official program websites in our specialty, we found a jumbled irregular mess of sites; some active, some inactive and very few with time/date stamps. Just a mess! (Sorry, dear colleagues who will never stumble across this site I bet, but just in case you do, sorry!)
There is a point to this comment, I promise. Academic blogs are great online bulletin boards, yeah and coffee-shops or pubs or whatever. ‘Cause that’s where people hang out these days, and it’s a part of life, and why not? We have to have some sort of online presence when potential, and current, students are a part of the internet space and glean a lot of info from the crazy that is out there. Might as well be a part of it, might as well direct some of the traffic, might as well keep up, might as well provide a useful resource.
Blogs are just tools and it is up to the user to decide how useful the tool is. I don’t know how I ended up in this corner of the blogosphere, but I find it fascinating, it’s good for me as an American to read outside of American circles (well, and Indian too, in my case) and you never know! Academics like to borrow ideas cross-discipline. Ain’t nothing wrong with it. Oh, wait, what was the topic of the post again? Oh yeah: just because one user might not find a tool particularly useful, doesn’t mean another one won’t. It’s up to the individual.
I forgot to add: blogs are also kind of old-timey. I think anyone under a certain age pretty much just texts full-time.
I wonder why the Register (which I hadn’t heard of before, I’ll have to start reading it) thinks we bother to read this blog. I at least come here for two reasons. The first is that I want to hear the British opinion. Most security debate online seems to be American, with several assumptions that are American in nature. The second and more important is that I found the idea of a college creating a blog on security to be rather interesting (and is the only reason I have any interest in King’s College).
In other words, there are worse places for a leader to go for advice.
From a note on Tom Rick’s FP blog: “My own view is that this QDR was never intended to be revolutionary, it simply provides a decent strategic framework building on Secretary Gates’ well-known priorities.”
A little more of that over here would be nice!