An adage exists in the military which is unfortunately very accurate: “we train for the war we just fought.” Though in many aspects our Army has made tremendous advances tactically and technologically, one area that is very much neglected is cultural understanding of the nation or group whom we plan on fighting. For decades, the unwritten tactical rule advocated using firepower, maneuver, and protection to defeat enemies. This concept was very much a product of our past campaigns with industrialized nations (like Germany or Japan) and the threat of war with the Soviet Union or Communist China. Being able to talk to the enemy or their civilians was tangentially addressed but never viewed as a priority for all but a few very specialized units. An ability to speak with and understand the enemy didn’t matter… they would be killed. This heavy handed concept has been reexamined because of the guerrilla nature of the Global War on Terrorism. The change in operations was certainly an emergent change or a change which gradually developed out of necessity (Jick, 2003, p.16). Though our tactics have altered to better face our present enemy, specifically the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, our focus on linguistics and cultural awareness is still negligible. For most maneuver units, training timelines are very condensed given the frequency of deployments. This forces commanders to focus their limited time and resources on essential training tasks and events; live fire exercises, medical training, and marksmanship. For many commanders, the emphasis on tangible results justifies a program which puts linguistics and cultural awareness on the back burner. Often, if it is trained on, it is only addressed as a “check the block” event, where minimal effort is applied. In fairness, one must acknowledge that some effort has been made by the Army and commanders to give units a minimal level of cultural understanding. Often, units will identify one or two Soldiers out of every 40 to attend a week long language course, and annually all Soldiers are given cultural awareness classes on Middle Eastern Culture; these classes normally take two to three days depending on the program. Though some attempt has been made to address language training and cultural education, the end result is mediocre for most units. Frequently, Soldiers learn about the culture they are going to be facing once they are in the theater of operations they have deployed to.
Unfortunately, by the time a Soldier learns enough of the language to be effective, or the nuances of cultural etiquette, it is several months into the deployment and valuable time has been wasted. To adequately leverage language and cultural sensitivity as a tool on the modern battlefield requires a greater exposure for our Soldiers to the language of the enemy they will be facing. To accommodate this exposure will require a change in how our units do business in garrison environments.
For most indigenous people, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan, active warfare is limited to a very small part of their population. The vast majority of the population will probably be indifferent to the campaign one way or the other. Though the population as a whole may passively support the insurgents or guerrillas, they mostly attempt to keep to their own lives unless acted on in a negative manner. A civilian will certainly know who the insurgents are in his area but will not feel compelled identify them unless he connects with the invader more than he does his insurgent neighbor. For this reason the value in understanding the indigenous culture for an invading Army is profound. Paramount in this understanding of culture is being able to speak the language of the indigenous population. A study made during the Vietnam war found that “all field advisors interviewed who had some mastery of Vietnamese had found it an invaluable asset” (Ramsey, 2006, p.152). True understanding of a culture requires immersion in many lengthy classes, however, a relatively benign technique for interacting with civilians of a different culture is conversation. It must be acknowledged that learning a different language, like cultural awareness, is remarkably challenging and requires a great deal of time to become proficient for most people. However, a rudimentary understanding can be arrived at with relatively little effort. As a cultural tool, communications can help endear indigenous persons to our Soldiers as well as enable better gathering of intelligence on the battlefield. Though interpreters do exist, they are not abundant enough to be present on every patrol. Without an ability to communicate it is challenging for Soldiers to differentiate from sadiki (friends) and enemy. Interpreters drawn from the local population may also have ulterior motives and seek to deceive their American employers. Therefore, an ability to communicate, even at an elementary level, is as important to a Soldier as having enough bullets… perhaps more so.
Interestingly, our Army has a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge concerning successful execution of guerrilla campaigns and the effectiveness of cultural understanding at the Soldier level. Our nation’s military history is actually filled with numerous campaigns with guerilla elements, which Kipling refers to as “savage wars of peace” (Karshtedt, 2006, para. 5). These wars, aimed at quelling rebellions or insurgencies, fostered a great deal of educational movement at the Soldier level within the Army. With one campaign in particular, the Philippine Insurrection, the effectiveness of units quelling rebellious “insurrectos” was generally related to a unit’s ability to interact with the local populace in a civil way.
The Taft administration encouraged a policy known as “benevolent assimilation” for the territories that were gained from the war with Spain, including the Philippine Islands. The concept revolved around the feeling that the native peoples of these new territories would become Americanized and ultimately benefit from the advances made in our industrialized culture (Linn, 2002). Ironically, Americans found that in their quest to Americanize the Philippines, they had to gain a better understanding of the culture and the language of the natives. To encourage the Phillipino people to transition required significant communications skills at the Soldier level. Without a basic understanding of their culture and language the assimilation could only occur through violence.
Though revisionist academic culture has sought to paint the American campaigns in the Philippines as brutal and oppressive, the United States was successful in that campaign because of their willingness to assist the civilian population peacefully. Interestingly, in the case of the Philippines, a logistical peculiarity enhanced the American campaign. Units that fought in the Philippine Islands came from posts (forts) or states that were west of the Mississippi River, especially the Southwest. In these regions of the United States, even in 1900, Spanish was widely understood. Apart from tremendous tactical experience fighting guerilla wars against the American Indians, Soldiers heading to the Philippines often had the ability to communicate with the merchant and land owning castes in the Philippines, as these elements spoke Spanish rather than other native dialects.
In contrast to successes, many cases of failed campaigning came from arrogant alienation of the local populace by the occupying forces. One incident in particular resulted in dreadful casualties for both sides on the island of Samar. Marines and Soldiers garrisoning the towns on the island were especially brutal and made no attempt to interact with the local population. In an arrogant disregard for the guidance of “benevolent assimilation” American forces on Samar conducted their patrols most violently and expected the locals to adopt the customs of the Americans unconditionally. The result was a lengthy guerilla campaign recognized more for destruction than any attempt to help the native people. Furthermore, the violence caused a sense of alienation
which encouraged the civilians to support the guerillas without question and rise up in open rebellion (Linn, 2002).
Similar patterns, successful and unsuccessful, have been observed in more recent American campaigns in Korea, El Salvador and Vietnam. “Developing rapport was just the beginning,” says Ramsey of advisors during the Vietnam War, and key to building rapport with a foreign people is speaking their language and understanding their customs (Ramsey, 2006, p. 50).
Recently, another example of cultural and linguistic knowledge augmenting tactical success occurred in Iraq. After the much advertised troop surge, which placed an additional 30,000 American troops in Iraq, succeeded in reducing violence, a peculiar transformation began to develop in many regions of that nation. Local populations actively sought out Americans on patrol in order to give them information on insurgents. This metamorphosis did not happen over night. The Army as a whole has inadvertently incorporated cultural knowledge into its units as a result of its extended experience in Iraq. But not all units had an abundance of veterans to leverage cultural knowledge. One relatively new unit has had a great deal of success in no small part because of the cultural training they received prior to their deployment. This unit is C Troop of the 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, known as “Comanche” Troop. Comanche troop was built from scratch from October 2005 and deployed to Iraq in early February of 2007.
With just over a year to prepare, the Comanche Troopers, most of whom were new Soldiers to the Army, were subjected to a very strenuous training program similar to every other unit in their division and even in the Army as a whole. Their training differed in that they had a regular linguistic training regiment as well as Arabic cultural reinforcements in all their training events. Every Soldier in their 80 man troop was enrolled in a language program called Rosetta Stone. Additionally, every Soldier in the troop was provided with Arabic language pamphlets and workbooks already developed by the Army. The emphasis on language was also integrated into training exercises where Soldiers role played as enemy or practiced their language skills as friendly forces. The training regiment was incorporated into everyday garrison life and made Arabic linguistics seem, in some part, second nature. When Comanche Troop participated in a set of maneuvers at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, California, which employs hundreds of Arabic speakers who serve as role players, the feedback from cadre and roll players alike was extremely positive; the Comanches held an elementary understanding of the Arabic language even at the lowest level. C Troop had effectively incorporated knowledge of Arabic into their unit and employed it as a tool.
The real validation for the Comanches came months later after they had deployed to Iraq. In the East Rashid district of Baghdad, part of a volatile area known as Dora, the Comanches and their comrades from 1-4 Cavalry had many tough fights. However, their determined application of census patrols, with active interaction with the local Iraqis, eventually won over the indigenous population and increased the level of HUMINT (Human Intelligence) gathered on each patrol. During census patrols, groups of ten to fifteen Soldiers move by foot or truck to some predetermined group of homes in their zone. Once there, they go to each home, enter and take a census of the family; names, occupation, how their electricity or other civic needs are being met, etc…
The Comanches had been trained on the importance of courtesy prior to the deployment as well as peculiarities of Arab culture. A training team was coordinated for and visited Comanche Troop and their Squadron on two occasions as well as another cultural awareness seminar while at Fort Irwin. When Soldiers would enter Iraqi homes it was more like a casual visit with friends, and their passing ability to communicate in Arabic established positive relationships with many Iraqis who had become jaded from years of violence that appeared interminable. The local Iraqis became so comfortable with the Americans that they would invite the Comanches in for tea, or supper which is customary in Iraqi culture for guests. During these visits, Soldiers would practice their elementary Arabic and break the ice with the Iraqis establishing the foundation for acceptance as well as gathering valuable information about their zone. Additionally, the inhabitants of the Comanches’ zone began to have positive associations with the Americans and even developed close friendships with Soldiers.
Fortunately, the cultural education the Soldiers received before the deployment prepared them for potentially awkward situations that arose from friendly interaction with Arabs. One humorous event involved SFC Scott Hanzich, a Platoon Sergeant in Comanche troop. SFC Hanzich had been taught about the frequency with which Arabs touch members of the same sex. As McShane points out, “nonverbal communication is more important in some cultures than others” (McShane, 2008, p.325). The nonverbal communication of touching hands or hugging shows great respect in Arab culture. SFC Hanzich befriended an Iraqi Police Lieutenant who insisted on closer contact than would be culturally acceptable in the United States. Though he privately endured the good natured ridicule of his peers, he knew that the Iraqi was simply showing friendship rather than making obscene advances. “If I had not known about their touchy-feely ways I would have punched this guy,” recalled Hanzich (Hanzich, 2007). Now, the Iraqis and the Americans are actively working together and have a greater feeling of friendship and cooperation. This transformation not only alienated the terrorists but has caused a dramatic decrease in attacks and an increase in insurgents captured after being exposed by their neighbors.
Acknowledging that language and cultural understanding are valuable tools is easy for any commander. However, implementing a plan for training which incorporates language and culture into every day is more challenging. Sending troops away to lengthy language courses is impractical and costly. Furthermore, if too much effort is placed on linguistics and not enough on other essential tasks the Army would be filled with thousands of Arabic speakers who cannot shoot or render first aid! Advertising this vision for change within a unit will require some commitment from the chain of command because as Jick and Peiperl state “to make change successful, some picture of the desired future state- vision- is essential” (Jick, 2003, p.92). Fortunately, tools exist already which can enable a commander to keep linguistics a priority in their units without hampering other mission essential training events:
Rosetta Stone: the Army has a contract with the Rosetta Stone Language Company and their language software is available on the Army Knowledge Online website for use by any Soldier. Enrolling is simple and using the program is very easy. The benefit of this system is that upon completion of a lesson the Soldier receives a certificate. This certificate validates that they are doing their homework and is also worth college credit at many institutions!
Additionally, each lesson can be completed in four hours. Since the lessons are broken down into ten portions, it does not require an abundance of time for the Soldier and can easily be completed during the day. Requiring a certificate at the end of each month is realistic even for the most academically challenged. As there will certainly be resistance from many of the Soldiers, advertising the benefits of the program will help internalize the action. Posting a stated vision for the program is one technique that has great value and has been used in the Army as well as the civilian sector (Jick, 2003).
Defense Language Institute Arabic Language Survival Guide: The Army has published a very practical and user friendly pamphlet which has essential phrases in it for any Soldier during a campaign. Distribution of these documents months prior to a deployment will enable Soldiers to familiarize themselves with them and use them as a reference when studying on Rosetta Stone or other language mediums. Though some commanders may be hesitant to distribute these resources as some Soldiers will loose them, it is advisable nonetheless. Creativity can easily be applied to ensure troops keep this reference on their persons by making it mandatory or punishing those who loose these documents.
Kwikpoint Reference Cards: The Kwikpoint reference cards, which have pictures of actions and things along with English and Arabic translations enable Soldiers with even the most elementary language skill to be able to communicate with the locals. Distribute these long before the deployment and order more for surplus. Being familiar with these cards can enable any Soldier to communicate, even if they have no understanding of Arabic whatsoever!
Cultural Training: Every major installation in the Army has access to Middle Eastern Cultural Training Teams who are available for educating Soldiers. Normally, installations and units incorporate these teams to train their elements over a two or three day period prior to a deployment. Increasing the frequency of these training visits to once a quarter as opposed to once annually will improve the individual Soldier’s appreciation for the culture in which he is going to be exposed. This appreciation, though it may not be genuine, can at least cultivate an understanding and prevent negative perceptions which can quickly alienate Soldiers from the civilians they need to interact with.
Find a validation exercise: Posted visions and active training will certainly have positive benefits for to ingraining the language skills in one’s Soldiers. However, witnessing the benefits firsthand reinforce the value of language skills and encourage troops to learn more about the culture in which they are going to be immersed. The National Training Center as well as the Joint Readiness Training Center both have extensive numbers of Arabic speaking role players. This will be the best opportunity for a unit to validate their language and cultural skills, as every unit must participate in one of these maneuvers prior to deploying to Iraq. For the Soldiers, they will see first hand that even a rudimentary skill with the foreign tongue will assist their patrols greatly.
Ultimately, the need to incorporate linguistics training and cultural sensitivity is imperative for the success of our Army in any campaign. Though our current conflict compels our troops to focus on the languages of the Middle East, like Arabic and Pashto, a systemic approach to language training using existing tools can augment our Army’s ability regardless of what nation or culture in which we are required to fight. Use of cultural awareness training teams, language pamphlets, quick reference guides and computer programs like Rosetta Stone give commanders an easy method for tracking their unit’s language proficiency, and can provide them metrics when they attend maneuvers at any of our training centers. In the end, the success of foreign language skills and cultural understanding manifests itself in combat. For in an environment as unforgiving as war, an ability to understand a warning given in a foreign tongue can mean the difference between life and death.
This posting does not nessecarily reflect the official stance of the United States Army. This is my own work and reflects my opinion. Thomas E. Laybourn, 16SEP08
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
MAJ Brad Martin's Blog
The Most Significant Day of My Military Career
Major Brad K. Martin, Student, Command and General Staff College,
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas
Over the course of my career, there have been several significant days. The first day as a brand new Second Lieutenant in my platoon, taking Company Command and crossing the border of Kuwait and Iraq heading towards Baghdad are a few of those significant days. However, it was a handshake and a picture during a clothes drive in Kosovo that is the most significant day of my military career.
From May 2002-November 2002, I was in command of my company and deployed to Kosovo. In preparation for the deployment, we conducted all of the necessary train-up, and were briefed that our primary role there would be as peacekeepers. As a military police officer, I knew that my company, and I, would be spending a great deal of time out on the roads, conducting area security and police intelligence operations. I knew this would put us out in the cities and villages, and we would be talking with people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds. I also knew that we would take part in helping to train a former Albanian Infantry unit that was changing into a Search and Rescue unit.
Knowing what our mission was and what our day to day business was going to entail, I began to think of different ways that we could bridge the gap between the different ethnicities we would encounter. I knew that it would be impossible to change their culture, but I knew that it was possible to have a positive effect on those that we encountered, and that possibly, through our efforts, we could bring some people together to share in a common good. After much thought, I decided that a clothes drive would be a mission that could help us in this effort.
At the time, I was stationed in Germany, so I began to coordinate with several Provost Marshal Offices across Germany to place clothes drop boxes in their offices. I also coordinated with the Garrison Commander’s Office in several Base Support Battalions across Germany to get the word out to the communities about the clothes drive and where to take any donated clothes. I also coordinated with my parents in Tomahawk, WI and explained to them the mission and how they could help.
After the unit arrived in Kosovo, and we completed our relief in place (RIP) process and began our mission, I was very happy that I decided to conduct the clothes drive. The poverty that we witnessed was staggering, and it was very difficult to see anyone, especially children, living in the manner in which they did. Clothes were definitely something that everyone needed, and I had a good feeling that the mission would be widely accepted by the entire population, no matter what ethnicity they were. We did an assessment on which areas we needed to focus on the most and came up with a distribution plan to get the clothes out to them as quickly as we could, but in an organized, efficient, manner.
Clothes from both Germany and the United States began to arrive by the truckload. I was overwhelmed by the generosity that people showed. In many instances, people bought brand new clothes and donated them to our mission. As well as clothes, people donated shoes, jackets, winter clothes etc. As the boxes began to quickly pile up, we began our distribution plan.
As planned, we first began to distribute clothes to those who needed them the most. The reception by the people of Kosovo was incredible. Men, women and children alike were absolutely thrilled to be receiving the clothes, shoes, etc. In some of the villages that we stopped, there were people of several different ethnicities taking the clothes. What was incredible about this was that they were sharing the clothes together. When I saw this, I began to think that possibly this mission will succeed in trying to heal some of the wounds that these people have suffered from one another through years of ethnic conflict.
As the months went on, the clothes drive began to have better and better results. On one occasion, a village mayor approached me. He thanked me for the clothes we were giving away, and had heard we were giving clothes away throughout the region. He asked me to follow him to an area so that he could show me something and ask for our help. He brought me to the village school, which wasn’t much of a school in my eyes. The school had been bombed during the war and it was in much need of repair. He asked if there was any way we could help, and I told him absolutely we could help.
During a meeting between the mayor and myself, we arranged a date, and for him to bring manpower and supplies to the school. I told him that I would bring manpower and supplies as well. On the prearranged date, I arrived with several of the officers from our battalion staff and any others who wanted to help. As we arrived, I could see that he had a great deal of manpower and supplies already on site.
During the next several days, we mixed cement, and helped to carry supplies to carpenters who were rebuilding the school. While there, I saw a very old man who was helping in any way that he could. It was obvious that this man had a very hard life, and each day he arrived in the same tattered clothes as the day before. I had several boxes of clothes in the back of our trucks, and thought it would be good to give him some of those clothes, especially a sport jacket that had been donated. I brought the man over to our boxes and had him take any clothes that he wished. He was very happy and so thankful that we were giving him these clothes. Just before he left, I grabbed the sport jacket and put it on him. He broke down crying at the generosity. He had always wanted a jacket like that, but was never able to have one until now. He turned to me and shook my hand with such appreciation. We took a picture together, hugged and said our farewells. It was that handshake and picture that is the most significant day of my military career.
The most significant day of my military career was the handshake and picture because it was a very proud moment for me knowing that I had succeeded in something that I had set out to do, and also that I was able to give to people who were in such desperate need. I also believe that I had a very positive effect on those who took part in the clothes drive, especially the young Soldiers in my unit. It will certainly be a day that I will never forget, and will be an experience that I can bring to future units that I may be assigned to.
The views expressed in this essay are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Over the course of my career, there have been several significant days. The first day as a brand new Second Lieutenant in my platoon, taking Company Command and crossing the border of Kuwait and Iraq heading towards Baghdad are a few of those significant days. However, it was a handshake and a picture during a clothes drive in Kosovo that is the most significant day of my military career.
From May 2002-November 2002, I was in command of my company and deployed to Kosovo. In preparation for the deployment, we conducted all of the necessary train-up, and were briefed that our primary role there would be as peacekeepers. As a military police officer, I knew that my company, and I, would be spending a great deal of time out on the roads, conducting area security and police intelligence operations. I knew this would put us out in the cities and villages, and we would be talking with people of all ethnic and religious backgrounds. I also knew that we would take part in helping to train a former Albanian Infantry unit that was changing into a Search and Rescue unit.
Knowing what our mission was and what our day to day business was going to entail, I began to think of different ways that we could bridge the gap between the different ethnicities we would encounter. I knew that it would be impossible to change their culture, but I knew that it was possible to have a positive effect on those that we encountered, and that possibly, through our efforts, we could bring some people together to share in a common good. After much thought, I decided that a clothes drive would be a mission that could help us in this effort.
At the time, I was stationed in Germany, so I began to coordinate with several Provost Marshal Offices across Germany to place clothes drop boxes in their offices. I also coordinated with the Garrison Commander’s Office in several Base Support Battalions across Germany to get the word out to the communities about the clothes drive and where to take any donated clothes. I also coordinated with my parents in Tomahawk, WI and explained to them the mission and how they could help.
After the unit arrived in Kosovo, and we completed our relief in place (RIP) process and began our mission, I was very happy that I decided to conduct the clothes drive. The poverty that we witnessed was staggering, and it was very difficult to see anyone, especially children, living in the manner in which they did. Clothes were definitely something that everyone needed, and I had a good feeling that the mission would be widely accepted by the entire population, no matter what ethnicity they were. We did an assessment on which areas we needed to focus on the most and came up with a distribution plan to get the clothes out to them as quickly as we could, but in an organized, efficient, manner.
Clothes from both Germany and the United States began to arrive by the truckload. I was overwhelmed by the generosity that people showed. In many instances, people bought brand new clothes and donated them to our mission. As well as clothes, people donated shoes, jackets, winter clothes etc. As the boxes began to quickly pile up, we began our distribution plan.
As planned, we first began to distribute clothes to those who needed them the most. The reception by the people of Kosovo was incredible. Men, women and children alike were absolutely thrilled to be receiving the clothes, shoes, etc. In some of the villages that we stopped, there were people of several different ethnicities taking the clothes. What was incredible about this was that they were sharing the clothes together. When I saw this, I began to think that possibly this mission will succeed in trying to heal some of the wounds that these people have suffered from one another through years of ethnic conflict.
As the months went on, the clothes drive began to have better and better results. On one occasion, a village mayor approached me. He thanked me for the clothes we were giving away, and had heard we were giving clothes away throughout the region. He asked me to follow him to an area so that he could show me something and ask for our help. He brought me to the village school, which wasn’t much of a school in my eyes. The school had been bombed during the war and it was in much need of repair. He asked if there was any way we could help, and I told him absolutely we could help.
During a meeting between the mayor and myself, we arranged a date, and for him to bring manpower and supplies to the school. I told him that I would bring manpower and supplies as well. On the prearranged date, I arrived with several of the officers from our battalion staff and any others who wanted to help. As we arrived, I could see that he had a great deal of manpower and supplies already on site.
During the next several days, we mixed cement, and helped to carry supplies to carpenters who were rebuilding the school. While there, I saw a very old man who was helping in any way that he could. It was obvious that this man had a very hard life, and each day he arrived in the same tattered clothes as the day before. I had several boxes of clothes in the back of our trucks, and thought it would be good to give him some of those clothes, especially a sport jacket that had been donated. I brought the man over to our boxes and had him take any clothes that he wished. He was very happy and so thankful that we were giving him these clothes. Just before he left, I grabbed the sport jacket and put it on him. He broke down crying at the generosity. He had always wanted a jacket like that, but was never able to have one until now. He turned to me and shook my hand with such appreciation. We took a picture together, hugged and said our farewells. It was that handshake and picture that is the most significant day of my military career.
The most significant day of my military career was the handshake and picture because it was a very proud moment for me knowing that I had succeeded in something that I had set out to do, and also that I was able to give to people who were in such desperate need. I also believe that I had a very positive effect on those who took part in the clothes drive, especially the young Soldiers in my unit. It will certainly be a day that I will never forget, and will be an experience that I can bring to future units that I may be assigned to.
The views expressed in this essay are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
MAJ Caldwell's Article
Well, for the most part, here is the article I will submit for publishing with the Duncanville Suburban Newspaper, Duncanville, Texas - My hometown newspaper.... Wonder if it will make the cut....????
JOE
The U.S. Military’s relationship with the Media
MAJ Joseph R. Caldwell
The purpose of this editorial is to inform readers on a new educational initiative for field grade officers at The Command and General Staff College (CGSC), located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. CGSC is the mid-level formal educational college for all U.S. Army service members (active duty) in the rank of Major. The Combined Arms Center’s Commander, Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell (no relation to me) has recognized the importance of the mass media and its influence on public opinion. Additionally, he sees the positive impacts professional blog sites have as a forum to spread information, discuss new ideas, and debate certain topics. He recognizes the lack of experience necessary our military officers need to have in interacting with the media. The Army does have specialized media personnel with Brigade size units. However, LTG Caldwell believes all field grade officers need skills to effectively work with the media. LTC Caldwell has since instituted a new requirement for all current CGSC students. We must interact with the mass media! We actually have four requirements. One is, publish a news paper article, conduct a public speaking engagement, be interviewed by a member of the media, and establish a blog site on the internet.
Encouraging blogging is a new occurrence in the military’s culture. In most cases, it has been strictly frowned upon. LTG Caldwell’s vision has been met with some discord with fellow military officials. Having mid-level military officers freely go to the internet or press and express their points of view is a new endeavor for the U.S. Army. However, in the case of Blogging, I think it is inevitable. Currently, there are tens of thousands of recognized professional blog sites on the internet. LTG Caldwell wants field grade officers to actively engage in thought provoking board discussions via this medium. LTG Caldwell’s vision for the importance for effective and productive media relations and use of internet blog sites will in essence, leave his mark on the U.S. Army Officer Corps for years to come.
The most beneficial block of instruction thus far at the Command and General Staff College was the importance of effective relations between the U.S. Military and the Media. Media relations must be considered a combat multiplier by U.S. Military commanders. Media relations focused on lessons learned from past failures between the military commanders and the media, an depth synopsis of today’s modern media, and most importantly, how to prepare and interact with the media during a crisis situation. Interaction with the media is an arena where a commander at any level can find themselves in hot water if unprepared or found to be untruthful. Being untruthful in one’s statements to the media may not be on purpose, but as a result of not gathering vital facts before going on the record. This boils down to a lack of respect for how the media affects your operation, public opinion of your mission, or even you as an individual member of the U.S. Military. As time progresses, the United States military’s interaction with the world media corps will continue to grow and become more interconnected. We must be able to meet these evolving requirements if we like it or not.
We had an opportunity to meet with a professional media panel of experts from across the country. Members of the panel worked for the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and LA Times. I found the interaction and questioning of the panel members very informative. They gave us their opinion on what their responsibilities are as journalists, and what they expect from the military. Real life events discussed during discussions with the panel gave a clear example of what to do, or what not to do when working with a media representative.
Since the existence of a unified United States Military, there has also been a following of their actives by newspapermen, story writers, or journalist of some sort. Throughout recent history, military commanders often find themselves at “war” with these very individuals. History shows us the painful lessons these commanders learned from their “hatred” of journalists and writers of the time. The news papers, (depending on which side you were behind) would outline and publish for the masses, every flaw or incompetence by that particular commander. Some newspapers in operation during the civil war had the capability to publish several thousand copies a day. Even more amazing, they could be distributed hundreds of miles on the same day of publication via rail road shipping. Blunders by military commanders where widely known within a week or two of event happening. History seems to repeat itself often when looking at the evolution of the interaction, or lack of interaction, between senior military officials and the media. Commanding officers were held accountable for the actions or inactions during their campaigns, just as they are today. As time progressed through the civil war, criticism from the media met stiff resistance from the military. No real trustworthy relationship was ever established. This is something we are working to eliminate today.
This same scenario happened to U.S. Military commanders in every armed conflict to present day. The United States public has become accustomed to having someone to blame for a mishap or failure. Today, politically charged journalists will do their best to paint the story in the manner in which best fits the political views or followings of their organization. We see this daily when viewing CNN verses Foxnews. And we, as military officers will find ourselves caught in the cross fire, and must be able to effective interact and function with opposing media view points. Again, this block of instruction hit the nail right on the head.
Today’s modern media comes in many forms. Mass communication is accomplished through television, radio, print, and via the internet. The internet, through relatively new, compiles most of the information or news transmitted on a daily basis. Through new technologies, people today have the ability read, see, and hear news reports as the event happens. In some cases, the event could be half way around the world and being reported in nearly real time. We as an American public have gotten used to this instant news coverage. In fact, we demand it now more than ever. Modern media will continue to become more advanced, and make mass communications from anywhere in the world instant. Military leaders must know how this rapid response of news coverage can and will affect their mission in a combat or peace keeping environment. Crises around the world will continue to happen. But now, with the advancement of the media’s ability to cover these events, military leaders must be prepared to interact with the media just as fast as they have to react to the crisis itself.
The most valuable lesson was how to plan, prepare, and execute a media engagement or interview during a crisis. How well a battalion commander reacts to a hostile media during a press conference could very well have an affect on the public’s opinion on the roll of the American military in that region. Again, the mass public at large is consistently looking for somebody to blame. And we, as a military have more to learn on effectively maintaining a balanced relationship with the media. Not so easy to do in some cases. We have seen recent events in Iraq, where the stupid actions of a young staff sergeant can have extreme damages to public opinion (both in the U.S. and Iraq). When an Army Staff Sergeant assigned to Multi National Division-Baghdad, used a Koran as a target on a rifle range, it made world news within one day of it being reported. It took the President of the United States to conduct “damage control” and make a statement on the U.S. military’s roll in Iraq. This event could have erupted into multiple violent actions across Iraq if not handled quickly and with precision. Keep this is mind, the actions of a staff sergeant made the President of the United States react to the media’s coverage of the event. If that is not powerful influence, I do not know what is. Media engagements during a reaction to a crisis situation or culturally sensitive action by a U.S. service member must be taking as seriously as the mission itself.
LTG Caldwell has the correct vision for education requirements of future senior leader in the U.S. Army. We must be able to effectively interact with the media. This is an area of operation that will continue to grow in depth and responsiveness. LTG Caldwell’s directive for CGSC students to actively interact with the media and participate in professional blog sites has been with some opposition. However, I personally feel his vision for what the future will demand from us as members of the U.S. Military are right on. I look forward to my next class on media relations.
JOE
The U.S. Military’s relationship with the Media
MAJ Joseph R. Caldwell
The purpose of this editorial is to inform readers on a new educational initiative for field grade officers at The Command and General Staff College (CGSC), located at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. CGSC is the mid-level formal educational college for all U.S. Army service members (active duty) in the rank of Major. The Combined Arms Center’s Commander, Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell (no relation to me) has recognized the importance of the mass media and its influence on public opinion. Additionally, he sees the positive impacts professional blog sites have as a forum to spread information, discuss new ideas, and debate certain topics. He recognizes the lack of experience necessary our military officers need to have in interacting with the media. The Army does have specialized media personnel with Brigade size units. However, LTG Caldwell believes all field grade officers need skills to effectively work with the media. LTC Caldwell has since instituted a new requirement for all current CGSC students. We must interact with the mass media! We actually have four requirements. One is, publish a news paper article, conduct a public speaking engagement, be interviewed by a member of the media, and establish a blog site on the internet.
Encouraging blogging is a new occurrence in the military’s culture. In most cases, it has been strictly frowned upon. LTG Caldwell’s vision has been met with some discord with fellow military officials. Having mid-level military officers freely go to the internet or press and express their points of view is a new endeavor for the U.S. Army. However, in the case of Blogging, I think it is inevitable. Currently, there are tens of thousands of recognized professional blog sites on the internet. LTG Caldwell wants field grade officers to actively engage in thought provoking board discussions via this medium. LTG Caldwell’s vision for the importance for effective and productive media relations and use of internet blog sites will in essence, leave his mark on the U.S. Army Officer Corps for years to come.
The most beneficial block of instruction thus far at the Command and General Staff College was the importance of effective relations between the U.S. Military and the Media. Media relations must be considered a combat multiplier by U.S. Military commanders. Media relations focused on lessons learned from past failures between the military commanders and the media, an depth synopsis of today’s modern media, and most importantly, how to prepare and interact with the media during a crisis situation. Interaction with the media is an arena where a commander at any level can find themselves in hot water if unprepared or found to be untruthful. Being untruthful in one’s statements to the media may not be on purpose, but as a result of not gathering vital facts before going on the record. This boils down to a lack of respect for how the media affects your operation, public opinion of your mission, or even you as an individual member of the U.S. Military. As time progresses, the United States military’s interaction with the world media corps will continue to grow and become more interconnected. We must be able to meet these evolving requirements if we like it or not.
We had an opportunity to meet with a professional media panel of experts from across the country. Members of the panel worked for the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and LA Times. I found the interaction and questioning of the panel members very informative. They gave us their opinion on what their responsibilities are as journalists, and what they expect from the military. Real life events discussed during discussions with the panel gave a clear example of what to do, or what not to do when working with a media representative.
Since the existence of a unified United States Military, there has also been a following of their actives by newspapermen, story writers, or journalist of some sort. Throughout recent history, military commanders often find themselves at “war” with these very individuals. History shows us the painful lessons these commanders learned from their “hatred” of journalists and writers of the time. The news papers, (depending on which side you were behind) would outline and publish for the masses, every flaw or incompetence by that particular commander. Some newspapers in operation during the civil war had the capability to publish several thousand copies a day. Even more amazing, they could be distributed hundreds of miles on the same day of publication via rail road shipping. Blunders by military commanders where widely known within a week or two of event happening. History seems to repeat itself often when looking at the evolution of the interaction, or lack of interaction, between senior military officials and the media. Commanding officers were held accountable for the actions or inactions during their campaigns, just as they are today. As time progressed through the civil war, criticism from the media met stiff resistance from the military. No real trustworthy relationship was ever established. This is something we are working to eliminate today.
This same scenario happened to U.S. Military commanders in every armed conflict to present day. The United States public has become accustomed to having someone to blame for a mishap or failure. Today, politically charged journalists will do their best to paint the story in the manner in which best fits the political views or followings of their organization. We see this daily when viewing CNN verses Foxnews. And we, as military officers will find ourselves caught in the cross fire, and must be able to effective interact and function with opposing media view points. Again, this block of instruction hit the nail right on the head.
Today’s modern media comes in many forms. Mass communication is accomplished through television, radio, print, and via the internet. The internet, through relatively new, compiles most of the information or news transmitted on a daily basis. Through new technologies, people today have the ability read, see, and hear news reports as the event happens. In some cases, the event could be half way around the world and being reported in nearly real time. We as an American public have gotten used to this instant news coverage. In fact, we demand it now more than ever. Modern media will continue to become more advanced, and make mass communications from anywhere in the world instant. Military leaders must know how this rapid response of news coverage can and will affect their mission in a combat or peace keeping environment. Crises around the world will continue to happen. But now, with the advancement of the media’s ability to cover these events, military leaders must be prepared to interact with the media just as fast as they have to react to the crisis itself.
The most valuable lesson was how to plan, prepare, and execute a media engagement or interview during a crisis. How well a battalion commander reacts to a hostile media during a press conference could very well have an affect on the public’s opinion on the roll of the American military in that region. Again, the mass public at large is consistently looking for somebody to blame. And we, as a military have more to learn on effectively maintaining a balanced relationship with the media. Not so easy to do in some cases. We have seen recent events in Iraq, where the stupid actions of a young staff sergeant can have extreme damages to public opinion (both in the U.S. and Iraq). When an Army Staff Sergeant assigned to Multi National Division-Baghdad, used a Koran as a target on a rifle range, it made world news within one day of it being reported. It took the President of the United States to conduct “damage control” and make a statement on the U.S. military’s roll in Iraq. This event could have erupted into multiple violent actions across Iraq if not handled quickly and with precision. Keep this is mind, the actions of a staff sergeant made the President of the United States react to the media’s coverage of the event. If that is not powerful influence, I do not know what is. Media engagements during a reaction to a crisis situation or culturally sensitive action by a U.S. service member must be taking as seriously as the mission itself.
LTG Caldwell has the correct vision for education requirements of future senior leader in the U.S. Army. We must be able to effectively interact with the media. This is an area of operation that will continue to grow in depth and responsiveness. LTG Caldwell’s directive for CGSC students to actively interact with the media and participate in professional blog sites has been with some opposition. However, I personally feel his vision for what the future will demand from us as members of the U.S. Military are right on. I look forward to my next class on media relations.
Our First Blog
Well... This is a group effort!!! So, here are the members of Section 18C...
SGA MAJ Ric Lebron
Mr. Alan Lowe - Civilian Instructor
SGL MAJ Rey Ramos
ASGL MAJ Jason Shelton
LTC Var Veasna - Cambodia
LCDR David Sideward US Navy
MAJ John Adams
MAJ Joseph Caldwell
MAJ Shawn Kahler
MAJ Anthony King
MAJ Thomas Layborn
MAJ Brad Martin
MAJ Hugh McCauley
MAJ James McLean
MAJ Chris McMartin US Air Force
MAJ Anthony Nelson
MAJ Rhonda St. Peters
MAJ Jackie Kaine
MORE TO FOLLOW!!!!!!!
SGA MAJ Ric Lebron
Mr. Alan Lowe - Civilian Instructor
SGL MAJ Rey Ramos
ASGL MAJ Jason Shelton
LTC Var Veasna - Cambodia
LCDR David Sideward US Navy
MAJ John Adams
MAJ Joseph Caldwell
MAJ Shawn Kahler
MAJ Anthony King
MAJ Thomas Layborn
MAJ Brad Martin
MAJ Hugh McCauley
MAJ James McLean
MAJ Chris McMartin US Air Force
MAJ Anthony Nelson
MAJ Rhonda St. Peters
MAJ Jackie Kaine
MORE TO FOLLOW!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
