Rosa Brooks: Veterans Are Not Experts on Foreign Policy
Chock Block sends us a link to Foreign Policy where some chick, Rosa Brooks, writes “Sorry Folks, Veterans Are Not Necessarily Experts on Foreign Policy“. According to the bio about her, she’s “a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation. She served as a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011 and previously served as a senior advisor at the U.S. State Department.” In other words, she’s way smarter than rest of us because she’s sequestered in a think tank with a bunch of other pointy-headed hippies, and she doesn’t like the idea of veterans being asked our opinions on foreign policy.
I focused on “US Diplomatic History” when I was in college. Much of that study included our wars, there was really very little about diplomacy – like Clauswitz said “war is politics by other means”. No one hates war more than those who have to fight them – so who knows more about pitfalls of bad foreign policy?
Ms. Brooks disagrees. She’s concerned about the attention that veterans got during the last presidential debate which was sponsored by that broke-dick IAVA and NBC News;
Some of those service members and vets are smart, thoughtful, and sophisticated about politics, policy, and global affairs. Others are dumb as rocks.
This is par for the course in any group of millions of Americans: Some know what they’re talking about; others just like to talk. Wearing a uniform — or having once worn a uniform — doesn’t make someone uniquely qualified to evaluate political candidates.
No question, service members and veterans have a unique personal stake in politicians’ decisions about whether and when to use military force. But having a unique personal stake in these decisions isn’t the same as having unique wisdom.
Funny, but that’s the way I feel about those in academia who have no real practical experience outside of their cloistered existence inside the ivy-covered walls, whose only personal stake is worrying about that peer review on a paper. Brooks really just doesn’t like the military – she called us a welfare state a while back.
The generous benefits we give our military reflect the increasingly reflexive esteem in which we hold the armed forces. Despite (or because of) the dwindling number of Americans who serve or have a close relative who serves, support for the military has become America’s civil religion.
In part, this is because we recognize that with our all-volunteer military, the few truly do make sacrifices for the many. The punishing deployment tempo of the last decade — not to mention the thousands of military personnel killed and wounded — has wreaked havoc on military families and communities, even as most Americans live lives wholly untouched by terrorism and war.
But this can’t fully account for the disproportionate benefits we bestow on the military. Plenty of other Americans serve the nation in vital ways — consider public school teachers and nurses — and plenty of other Americans, from fishers to fire-fighters, have dangerous jobs. We don’t seem inclined to fling free health care and housing in the direction of teachers or fire-fighters, though.
She claims to be married to an Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Mouer, but, I’d advise him to sleep with one eye open. She doesn’t like military folks no matter what we do, or what we know. Or maybe she’s just a tiny bit jealous of the fact that our opinions are more valuable to Americans than those of a petty little teacher in a second-rate school.
Category: Foreign Policy, Schools
Yeah, for cloistered ivory-tower types, no real-world experience is a plus. Reality keeps messing up their beautiful theories.
Rosa Brooks, the Brad Pitts of US foreign policy.
SADDUP Twunt.
I bet the Colonel wishes Jody would take his girl…
ID-SARC would…
I’d hit it…hard and angrily. Woof, naughty gurl.
Reminds me of when engineers show up after I’ve spent a month identifying and fixing fuckup they’ve made in design and construction.
Something like, “I have no idea what you’re doing, but my book says you’re doing it wrong.”
My experience precisely.
You have no idea how many condescending eye rolls I’ve seen, or audible sighs I’ve heard from structural engineers and architects I’ve had to deal with on my construction sites over the years. Especially when a former dumb Marine and Army veteran(nor am I a college grad), point out their mistakes in the plans or on site. Their arrogance is really not justified. Nor is this ladies when she has no real world experience. She should go take a little ride in the back seat of a non up armored humvee in Iraq or Afghanistan. Then maybe she’ll understand
In my AO in Afghanistan, the Corps of Engineers spent money to build a police station. Problem is, it was across a ravine that had no bridge (and they weren’t going to build one) and they wouldn’t build it anywhere else because that’s where the contract said to build it. Even the district leadership said, please build it here next to the district center!
Their response was, “no, we’re building it over there. If you don’t like it, tough but you better put cops in it or we’re not building anything else here, ever.”
Fucking engineers. I could list 10 other examples but that’s the engineers. “If we build it, its going to be great, but with zero common sense.”
That is flat insane!
wonder what the LTC has to say about this. Or most likely he is the type who just knows he is so much smarter, insightful, and better than his superiors – and would be the only logical candidate to replace them. I somehow think a really sharp officer would associate with her. Anyone acquainted with him?
See below.
Hey Toots, FA’ Khyoo!!! WE Vets have to wait twice as long and jump through twice as many hoops and denials for medical care WE EARNED and were promised than the illegal aliens and diaper-heads that say “Gimme” as soon as they’re on American soil. UP YOURS nine ways to Sunday, you over-educated airhead! IMHO she’s about as competent and rooted in reality as a certain UC Berserkely stoodent that posts here and gets his ass kicked in return.
I know her husband. We were in the same seminar at the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies. He’s a retired SF guy with a combat jump and can probably keep up with her intellectually.
That said, I don’t have much of a problem with her article. I know plenty of guys who have spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan who know little to nothing about the foreign policy. I’ve also met senators who served on significant committees who knew nothing about the foreign polices that they were charged with developing. Military uniform and pay grade allow you to claim expertise in specific jobs. How many of you would put much credence gun control policies developed by LTC(R)Robert Bateman,a BSAP graduate, Army Strategic Plans and Policy Officer, Military Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, USMA history professor, and published author? After all, his is an Infantry officer and knows about weapons.
“I know her husband. We were in the same seminar at the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies. He’s a retired SF guy with a combat jump and can probably keep up with her intellectually.”
Ah, but could Rosa keep up with him making battle area command decisions?
diplomats don’t do those command decision thingies. They just order army people to do that shooting stuff and then talk about how the military shouldn’t be there because they were being diplomatic and it was working and would be successful in about 75 years.
No offense, Bobi, and I’m sure the Colonel is a stand-up guy, but pretty much any credibility she had discussing the military with me pretty much died when she called the military a welfare program in her previous article.
While the average Joe may have only gotten a “straw eye” view from their deployments, it us far greater than most civilians, including those in the ivory towers of academia. Further still, the various service War Colleges do a damn good job at teaching the senior ranks about foreign policy at a level well beyond that, and even beyond those Senators and Congress critters you spoke of earlier.
Bottom line, the opinions of veterans and AD folks SHOULD be considered, simply because of their exposure that most (including her) have never received. Are they the final authority? Of course not, nor would anyone here claim to be such, but dismissing us out of hand like that was a bit uncalled for.
Bobo…damn fat thumbs.
I read her stuff because I respect Joe Mouer. Some of it I agree with, some I don’t.
I think that her point was that, by having both candidates solicit to specifically veterans through the IAVA program, there is obviously an importance on gaining the veteran vote in this election. Her assumption appears to be that it’s because either the candidates or the population in general feel that a win in the veteran arena equates to validation of their specific foreign policies. She’s calling BS on the idea that it’s true, and, based on my experience, she’s right. Despite having a graduate degree, a functional area, and four skill identifiers all focused on strategy, planning, and policy, along with plans, strategy, and policy assignments as a field grade officer in Iraq and Afghanistan, I figured out that I didn’t know crap when I became a regional lead planner for an ASCC. Trying the instill the will of the US Army and the COCOM across a region where the countries don’t trust their neighbors, and where we don’t really trust our partners, is an eye opening experience, with ramifications beyond pacifying regional war lords.
Okay, Bobo, taking your last sentence into consideration (Trying the instill the will of the US Army and the COCOM across a region where the countries don’t trust their neighbors, and where we don’t really trust our partners, is an eye opening experience, with ramifications beyond pacifying regional war lords.), I have been trying for some time to understand why we’re doing that in the first place.
When the history of tribal warfare is as ancient as it is there, it becomes ingrained in the culture. Someone made the point a while back that the hill tribes are a law unto themselves. So what is the point to trying to change that, when it isn’t well understood to begin with? Their ‘rules’ or ‘culture’ aren’t going to change just because we say so. We (any outsiders) are in essence regarded as just another tribe trying to claim territory those other tribes have held for millenia.
Why should they listen to us when ‘we’ don’t understand them in the first place?
There are places in Afghanistan that war hasn’t touched since 400BC. They set and follow their own rules.
Does anyone ever discuss any of this with an anthropologist instead of foreign policy people? It seems to me that it would make more sense to approach it that way, than to continue with what appears to be an unsuccessful effort.
We never tried to change it when I was there. We tried to understand the dynamics so that we could manipulate it enough to work within our logical lines of operation and achieve endstates.
As far as anthropologists in the war zone we did do it, and while I was there (but it wasn’t in my command’s wheelhouse). Honestly, while some of the problem sets discovered and solutions devised were insightful, they didn’t bring much more than a really bright and thinking soldier could have, other than some language skills. See http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?_r=0
I agree.
I am not sure why so many people are offended with what is essentially an accurate article.
Veterans are not necessarily foreign policy experts.
My experience is most veterans/service members are far less knowledgable about foreign policy and foreign relations than they should be.
They are only marginally more informed that the general public of the same education levels.
I refer you back to ChipNASA’s short and sweet directive, as it fits you to a T
Lessee here: Running-mouth Brooks was “a counselor to the U.S. defense undersecretary for policy from 2009 to 2011″…
How has that set of policies been working out for you, Brooksy? Like Montezuma’s Revenge?
Let’s just grant, for sake of argument, that some military folks are not foreign policy experts (Looking at the phakers we’ve seen here). From the results you’ve been associated with, it is obvious you are not foreign policy expert, and neither is your ‘Bama.
Your ‘Bama’s so stupid…
How stupid is ‘Bama?
A Bro never leaves another Bro hanging….
Ah, she worked directly for Madame Mao. That’s all I need to know. Moving along.
I got no time for globalists/communists/socialists/progressives/democrats.
Uh hello Lady, there is an entire Branch in the United States Army, whose purpose IS the enactment of American Foreign Policy: Civil Affairs… Its not all bribing warlords and handing out soccer balls…
She’s not talking execution, Lucky – she’s talking formulation.
And she obviously knows what she’s talking about, too. After all: the foreign policy that she helped craft from 2009-2011 was just so successful. Just look at how Yemen, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, and Iraq have each turned out “just so wonderfully” regarding US interests in the Middle East!
Yes, that last para was pure sarcasm. Judging by results, virtually no one currently or formerly associated with the current Administration has ever known their butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to making effective US Foreign Policy.
Backing the muslim brotherhood and the arab spring really worked out well for them didn’t it.
And I lost count of the amount of times I’d offer recommendations and some dumb policy maker up on high said, “You just don’t understand what’s going on in your district. Here’s what we’re doing.” Who never left Bagram and never saw anything but the reports I gave them.
I knew both State and Civil Affairs strategists who knew dick about strategy and foreign policy and they were supposed to be at those levels ensuring it was working.
Don’t forget, we’re at the point where Israel is pissed at us, so is Britian. Our “new friends” are Iran, Cuba, we’re buying North Korea beers to get to know them, and a bunch of actors in Syria that are fighting each other now.
Yep, going so well….
Actually I feel that Veterans ARE experts in foreign policy – FAILED foreign policy.
When the politicians and diplomats fail to do their job, who do they call???
Bravo! Excellent rejoinder, nbcguy!
Shazaam!
I dunno, some of the comments I hear around the smoke deck tend to make me partially agree.
Especially with Manning–the media should really stop listening on his opinions of anything except lube.
I could of gone all year without hearing that name.
But, that piece of protoplasm fits their narrative…
“But having a unique personal stake in these decisions isn’t the same as having unique wisdom.”
Knowledge + experience = wisdom. She thinks that books alone give her more wisdom and intellect than actually experiencing the failures of diplomacy and policy first hand.
The exact problem with so many millenials. They think because they can google a fact on their phone, it makes them intelligent, let alone wise.
The same can be said for so many college professors who hide behind their lecterns telling students about the world they’ve never truly experienced.
“and plenty of other Americans, from fishers to fire-fighters, have dangerous jobs. We don’t seem inclined to fling free health care and housing in the direction of teachers or fire-fighters, though.”
Apples and oranges…those employees are mostly state/local government employees (and don’t deploy)which is why their salaries vary greatly. Yes, they are fukking underpaid, but not due to any U.S. policy. Many don’t come close to the $15.00 an hour people want for the burger flippers.
It seems to me that firefighters DO get their health care coverage and other benefits through their jobs, because they are municipal employees.
Firefighter starting salary: $33,280 ($16 an hour)
The following benefits are provided in addition to the regular paid salary:
-medical, dental and vision insurance
-life insurance
-paid training
-accrued paid vacation and holidays
-unlimited sick leave accumulation
-employee assistance program
-retirement plan
-NC401K
-civil & military leave
-worker’s compensation
-short-term disability leave
-NC Department Apprenticeship Program -advancement/promotion potential through -a career development program
-uniform service
*That’s from Cumberland County’s website.
And the medical and dental is paid for by the municipality?
That wasn’t the case when I was a cop. I didn’t need it cause I have TRICARE, but my academy classmates had a significant amount of their pay pulled to pay for medical and dental.
I got curious, so I looked up the lady’s bio. It can be found here: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/brooks-rosa.cfm# Her BA degree is in History and Literature (1991, Harvard). Her Masters is in Social Anthropology (1993, Oxford). Her other degree is a JD from Yale – yeah, she’s a lawyer. Here’s a snippet from her bio detailing her post-degree employment prior to her work in DoD from 2009-2011 (where she appears to have worked as a lawyer, not a policy expert or developer). I’ve added emphasis where I thought it apropos: From 2005-2009, Brooks was a weekly op-ed columnist for the Los Angeles Times, and served as faculty director of GULC’s Human Rights Institute. In 2006-2007, Brooks served as Special Counsel to the President at the Open Society Institute in New York. From 2001-2006, she was an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, where she taught human rights law, constitutional law, and criminal law. Brooks has also served as a senior advisor at the US Department of State, a consultant for Human Rights Watch, a fellow at the Carr Center at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, a board member of Amnesty International USA, a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a lecturer at Yale Law School, a member of the Executive Council of the American Society of International Law, a member of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Fragile States, the board of the National Security Network and the Steering Committee of the White Oak Foreign Policy Leaders Project. From the timing, I’d guess any employment she had at DoS was during the Clintoon administration. Her educational and professional background certainly appears to be that of a sterotypical Northeastern USA Ivory Tower internationalist liberal, so I rather doubt she’d have fit in in the Bush(43) administration. Bluntly, I see nothing in her educational background that qualifies her as a foreign policy expert. I also don’t see anything in her employment history that indicates expertise in foreign policy development. Working at a “think-tank” is NOT the same as actually developing and implementing workable policy or strategy… Read more »
So in other words…
she’s just the typical run of the mill far-left socialist Hillary voter.
Ex-PH2: under the ACA – AKA “that abomination known as ObamaCare” – virtually anyone working full-time for a firm employing 50 or more persons gets health insurance through their employer.
Most also receive certain other bennies as well, though those vary widely from employer to employer.
Okay, Hondo. The question is how much is paid by the employer and how much by the employee?
Does it vary from company to company?
I have both Medicare and VAHC, so I’m not worried, but if I were still working, I’d be concerned about premiums and deductibles.
It most assuredly does vary. I believe a typical “split” is somewhere around 75/25, with employer paying the larger share. But different splits exist.
California’s school “system” was ranked 9th worst in the nation in 2015. Their “average” pay is almost 70 grand and they have such a ridiculously over bloated appeals system it would take over 5 years to fire one of them. California teachers also get lifetime health care for them and their spouse and kids. (Thanks to their teacher’s union that half-runs Cali.)
Average teacher pay in the US is 56,310 bucks, not including benefits. You can quit whenever you want.
Average pay for law enforcement in the US is over 55,000. (2010) You can quit whenever you want.
Average Soldier pay is 29,000ish with an average 16 grand a year for housing. You’ll quit when we tell you you can quit.
I recall reading that a California teachers retirement pay exceeds the regular pay of teachers in most states. Sounds very plausible.
True for me. FWIW
If America wants 1% of its citizens to shoulder 100% of its politicians’ conflicts, it WILL compensate the individual service member appropriately for their hardship or nobody will see a logical reason to enlist and either one of two things could happen: 1.) the draft will be reinstated or 2.) our military will be woefully undermanned. You want the world’s strongest military, you have to pay for it.
Veterans and service personnel as a group are the ONLY group of Americans that have lived overseas for any appreciable time in significant numbers.
Living overseas, whether in Wiesbaden, Okinawa or Baghdad, is a perspective-changing experience. That change is significant.
And if you get off post and experience more than just the thunder runs of hitting ever bar in a 50-mile radius, you could see those different cultures and how they function.
I look at this two ways.
One, she is an idiot.
But two, she has a point, albeit on the fringe. I have seen a lot of E-3s, etc., come back and start spouting their “opinion” as fact on ME policy. While they did go and strap it on in the fight, they were not privy to the larger command scheme(s), higher requirements, functional awareness and PIR, if you will.
Not knocking them, but the fact remains. Now, when these same individuals went back to school and educated themselves in various subjects related to said ME policy, then they have increased merit.
The problem lies in the fact that many folks have no clue (civilians) about what went on there outside of CNN. Very similar to some of those clowns I see on TV talking about Geo-political issues and such and all they saw was the chow hall.
Oh, and I have seen MANY Officers do the aforementioned.
Things never really change:
“For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!”
But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot;
An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please;
An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool — you bet that Tommy sees!”
“Tommy” – Rudyard Kipling 1890
Bravo!
A literary reference riposte to the ivory-tower snowflake!
She does make a couple of points. However, having watched failed US policies more than once, starting almost 50 years ago and continuing through various administrations that either didn’t want to be bothered (Clinton) or didn’t know how or what to do (Carter, bodaprez) or really screwed up (Johnson), I think it’s fair to say that past experience shows whatever she may have contributed to current foreign policy is also a failure.
I would hesitate to take any advice from her.
The contrast lies in the Victorian government, which ran things in India with 9 civil service officers. They laid down the rules, period. It was when the Viceroy returned India to local Indian government control that things began to fall apart.
I don’t know who advised Kennedy to get into a Mexican standoff with Nikita Krushchev, but it worked.
I think it’s simple: If you know the other guy is out to get you, you beat him to the punch. Best foreign policy possible. Even Vlad knows this.
There was this guy once who said “Speak softly and carry a big stick”. Sometimes foreign relations require you to use that big stick.
If there was such a thing as a true foreign relations expert, and every nation had one, there’d be no need for the big stick. Or folks like us.
Exactly. But then, it requires someone at the top who understands that principal and is willing to employ it.
So, for example, the guy carrying the stick sets a “red line” and then uses the stick if it gets crossed? Just a crazy hypothetical, not like it’d ever happen….
That guy who set the “red line” used the stick, all right. To erase the red line.
Yes, but I said ‘understands’ and ‘willing to employ it’. Didn’t say a word about red lines.
In fact, the smart ‘guy’ would not draw a red line, or even mention ‘red’ or ‘line’. A surprise would be a better method. A smackdown would be quite effective when done properly and thoroughly. And whoever does that must be able to let the backlash roll off him like water off a duck’s back.
It might have been more effective, for instance, if Reagan had not just dropped a few boomers on Libya, but had instead, gotten Qadafi by the short hairs and bitch-slapped him.
You see, I’m too aggressive for the job. I understand the use of two nukes on Japan to end WWII.
That’s once. I’ll politely ask for your surrender to end this.
No? Okay, that’s twice. You want another one just like those two?
… and every bad actor has to KNOW that stick is really there and that you WILL use it.
Obama has seriously degraded the credibility of both of those, hence we live in interesting times … alas.
If Obama grabbed a big stick, all that would happen is that he’d get a splinter in his finger.
I tried to give her piece a fair reading but it was tough. For one thing, she tried to sound too chummy and informal with those uses of “icky” and “ickiness,” as if her readership were a bunch of prepubescent girls at a pajama party. For another, right away she took substantive issue with Trump but her assault on Clinton was to take exception to the distaff candidate’s use of the passive voice. That’s not what I would call equal treatment. And her attempt at humor failed miserably (e.g., “If political candidates could wear live service members as lapel pins, I’m sure they’d do so”) as did her sarcasm (e.g., “Why not just let NBC’s specially selected audience of veterans pick the next president?”)
My view of her piece is that it is terribly disjointed, as if she isn’t quite certain what point she wants to make. She lumps all Veterans together, mixing and matching retired general officers and one-enlistment EMs. Worst of all, she decries a Veteran’s political opinion or candidate endorsement while grudgingly acknowledging that we are, after all, citizens, too. I am certain that she has not written harshly about the so-called spokespersons for the Muslim, Black, Latino, or LGBT communities. Only the Veteran community is fair game. The others carry risk and she can’t afford that, I guess. As for the foreign policy expertise, more of it would have served oBaMa well. I defy her or anyone else to explain to me what our foreign policy is for the ME and North Africa.
Hell, I can explain the current Administration’s policy in the ME and North Africa to you, 2/17 Air Cav. It’s called “BOHICA – and don’t forget to smile”.
By the way: the lady has a JD from Yale. And much if not most of her professional work has either had the title “Counselor” or been as a faculty member at a law school.
Is that anything like “community organizer?”
To ask is to answer.
And here I thought their policy was the same one we use while deployed:
“129 days and a wake up!” (As of today, until 20 Jan 17 – yesterday I was doing calculations and found that my windows 10 calculator does time, distance, calendar days, and a bunch of other stuff on the base setup. it also has scientific and other stuff. wow!)
Another one of those over eduhmakated stooped(educated stupid) people, usually went to school at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford or say for instance Wellesley, that know what’s best for the rest of us
Except that is not what she said.
If you are able to read between the lines, it’s pretty clear. IMO.
“The generous benefits we give our military reflect the increasingly reflexive esteem in which we hold the armed forces.”
GIVE? GIVE?
How about Veterans EARNING those “generous benefits”.
The anchor babies illegals and 3 generation crack babies running around with I Phones and SNAP cards are the motherfuckers being GIVEN shit.
Oh, but just ask her – those “benefits” that are received by the Welfare Queens are rights, their just due.
Yep.
Nobody “gave” me anything for my military service. I signed a contract, legally binding for both the government of the United States and myself, that I would provide certain services in return for certain financial and other tangible benefits. In other words, I “earned” everything I received from the government. Ms Rosa, can you say the same about what the government has “given” you?
H311 no.
But she’ll tell you she’s entitled to it.
clueless…
I checked what my current salary as a legal/law firm billing specialist would be compared to what I’d be taking in before taxes in my rate, over 4 years, since I was 5 months shy of 6 years.
Assuming the Navy called me back at this point, I would certainly demand credit for continuing to work in my rate on my own, but that’s beside the point.
The difference is something on the order of $25,000 +/-, including bonuses. That includes medical/dental insurance, vision care, and a Flexpay account for reimbursement for OTC purchases.
Based on that, I think it’s fair to tell this know-it-all to stuff it. She does not know what she’s talking about.
The military base pay and benefits do not come close to what I made in civilian work, not now and not back in the 1960s.
No comparison. And she’s full of baloney.
This lady is full of more crap than a Christmas turkey!
Cocksucker.
A fine example of Stateus Assaholeus. Truly fine.
I’ve met more than a few like her.
Many “experts” are not experts in foreign policy.
In Iraq during the PRT days, there were a lot of them in their mid-20s acting like they were more important than flag officers. Ordering the military around like servants, telling Civil Affairs teams, who had actually been in Iraq before, what to do and how to do it.
I have a couple of friends who were being told to do laundry, clean trucks, get office supplies, etc., by some of those State “experts” because they were just “dumb Soldiers”.
It is true that veterans are not not typically experts in foreign policy.
So what is the issue with her statement?
And saying that veterans are not necessarily experts does not mean she does not like military folks. It just means she does not think being a veteran makes you a foreign policy expert.
Lars,
My issue with her flapping her cock-gobbler is that she is painting with a broad brush. What I get from reading her drivel is that, in her opinion, a three star general who has served numerous tours overseas in both operational and diplomatic postings is no more qualified than a SPC who spent 6 months sucking dust in Afghanistan refuel Trucks.
I would take issue if that is what she seemed to be saying as well.
I did not get the impression from the quotes above that she is talking about genuine experienced experts with decades of critical operational or senior level experience.
I think she is talking about the general tendency among the press and the public to frame someone as uniquely or particularly qualified to comment in the media on foreign policy issues merely merely because they are veterans.
I think being a combat veteran perhaps earns you a sort of particular public deference to your opinion on issues such as our use of force overseas. Much like being a cancer survivor “earns” you the right to comment on the state of current medical policies and treatment of cancer patients. But it does not make you and “expert” on war or foreign policy much like being a cancer survivor does not make you an oncologist.
Th problem is that the media tends to present the opinion of veterans as though they are equal in weight as an experience “expert” opinion without much context as to whether the veteran being interviewed or quoted has any genuine understanding of foreign policy or much experience for that matter.
I do not consider someone an “expert on Iraq” or Iraqi polictis merely because they were born and grew up there. Just as I would not consider someone an “expert” on US domestic policy or the U.S. in general merely because they were born and raised US.
Most people are not particularly informed or care to be about the vast majority of issues and even among those that try to be informed very very few of them would be regarded as experts.
So I definitely do not think a guy that served a tour in Iraq is an expert on international policy in the Middle East.
“So what is the issue with her statement?” Do you read her article, Lars? To whom is she responding, Lars? Who said that Veterans are foreign policy experts? Don’t write what you would like for her to have said. Point to her statements and the gist of the piece and let us know.
No, only read what Jonn posted. Her article is on my “to do list”.
Perhaps I will understand the controversy once I read it but the quotes Jonn posted do not seem that outrageous.
“Perhaps I will understand the controversy once I read it but the quotes Jonn posted do not seem that outrageous.”
You haven’t read it. Yet you still spew your usual verbal diarrhea and hold forth as if you wrote the article yourself.
Just another fucking know-it-all.
I read what Jonn posted. The stuff he quoted was the evidence he presented to support his claim.
I did not see how it was sufficient.
I now agreeing with you does not make me a “know it all”.
I just fucking disagree with you. And if you spent some time out of you echo chamber you might find other people do as well.
Correction;
*and not agreeing with you does not make me a “know it all.”
Not; “I now agreeing with you..”
I hate that crap.
I do not agree that people who go to school and earn degrees are considered “experts” by the media, the public, or even other academics.
The notion that being an “academic” gets you some sort of special respect for your expertise from the public seems to be a bias that some hold against academics that is not supported by the actual facts.
My ex is Chinese. Speaks and reads Chinese and Tibetan. Has a masters in Asian studies from Harvard, and is close to her PhD in Chinese politics from
Berkeley.
She does not consider herself and expert. Her students do not consider her an expert. Her peers do not consider her and expert. Her advisors and mentors do not consider her an expert.
When she gets her PhD she won’t be an expert. After years of field work, research, publishing, and teaching she may start to be regarded as an expert by some peers and some circles in the public on some aspects of Chinese politics. It will have taken two decades of field work, research education, and peer reviewed publishing for her to b regarded by some in her field as an “expert” and only on her very specific narrow focus, not Chinese politics in general. And even then there will be peers trying to publish work demonstrating her work is wrong.
Academics have a much higher standard for what an expert is than perhaps any field except maybe a few highly specialized medical fields.
Even top professors at top universities with books published on specialized topics do not regard themselves as “experts”. And the media almost never asks them anything even on specific topics that they may be the most respected academic in their field in the US or even the world.
The media would rather interview someone that viewers like to see being interviewed such as a movie star, politician, veteran, “survivor”, or “witness”, or someone charismatic/funny.
TLDR version: The American public does not consider academics “experts”. And they do not particularly care to hear or read what academics think and the media does not interview them because the public is not that interested in what they have to say.
In rebuttal of your claim that the media do ‘not interview academics because the public is not interested in what they have to say’, all local TV stations regularly interview academics from the University of Chicago, Northwestern University, DePaul University, etc., etc., etc.
If you are going to make generalized statements such as you did, you should know enough to cite your references. Otherwise, that is an opinion statement with no basis in reality. Period. Therefore, it is valueless.
And you’re still a dipstick, poodle, so chase a ball.
Who the hell but your generation watches local TV at this point?
You always find some anecdotal rebuttal to my claims regardless of how petty the rebuttal is.
Percentage of CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or any other major national news source interviews that are of academics?
Probably less than 2%.
Hell, the daily show interviews more academics than all major national news sources combined in a given month.
Oh, well, let me see. All of those networks are part of NATIONAL networks, so that question doesn’t even hold water.
I’d also add that most of those experts they talk to aren’t saying on air, “By the way, I’m an academic! I went to this school and this school and did this!”
Usually it is “former employee of” or “retired professor from” just the same as with retired generals, retired law enforcement, retired CIA, etc.
If you look at their Bio’s, you’ll see the academia or whatnot. But who’s really going to do that for every interview they see on TV?
If a veteran is on TV, they’ll be identified as such, what service, with maybe their rank thrown in. Even if they were only in for 4 years.
Well, YOU certainly consider YOURSELF to be an expert on just about anything you choose to comment on, when in fact, the opposite is true – which YOU have proven by your own words on repeated basis.
It’s quite plain that you don’t like being told you’re wrong, especially when YOU are wrong.
I do not consider myself an expert. I just stay very informed about a lot of things and have a lot of opinions about those things.
You guys project you assumption that I think I am an expert because I disagree with you on most things. Unlike you I spend the overwhelming majority of my time reading the writings and opinions of people that disagree with me from sources completely opposite my political and intellectual views.. You stay in your sheltered little echo chamber day in and day out.
As for my “expertise”. I am far more qualified than the average person with respect to my work and education on those things that I chose to “specialize” in. But I would not consider myself an expert on anything specific. Except maybe some of the challenges of governance during an insurgency.
There was a time I felt like an “expert” on some aspects of North Korean military capability relevant to the mission sets I was involved in but that was more than a decade ago so I am essentially clueless about the current state of their capability. And that is the closest I have ever felt I was an expert on anything.
Oh, North Korea, huh? It’s common, confirmed knowledge now that Norkiland successfully tested a 20 to 30 kiloton-yield nuclear weapon last week. The detonation generated a seismic wave that registered a 5.3Mw on seismometers and resulted in the evacuation of a school in the province of China nearest the Nork/China border. In addition, Fatty Kim da T’ird’s missile program is slowly moving forward with more successful launches. He has announced that the production of warheads suitable for delivery by those missiles will soon be underway. He’s making the Chinese very nervous.
That was all last week. Not rumor, not speculation, and certainly not hard to find. Since he’s a megalomaniac, the son and grandson of two megalomaniacs, I’m quite sure what he’s doing gives him the giggles. The obvious concern is that he’ll decide to ‘test’ one of his nukes above ground when the USA and South Korea engage in one of their regular military exercises.
Since atmospheric nuclear testing was stopped in the 1970s due to Dr. Helen Caldecott’s findings of a correspondence between atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific and increasing rates of pediatric cancer in Australian children, an above-ground nuclear detonation would be a provocative meant specifically to generate an armed response from both South Korea and the USA, and most likely China would be involved in that as well.
Now, none of that is anecdotal. It’s easy enough to find that stuff, including the seismic report on websites that report earthquakes worldwide.
Now, I’m no expert on Norkiland. I just pay attention to what goes on there, especially since some of my clothing comes from there and we have troops stationed there.
Redact all of your last post except the following, and it will be the most accurate statement you’ve ever made on this forum, and quite possibly your entire existence:
I am essentially clueless
“Some of those service members and vets are smart, thoughtful, and sophisticated about politics, policy, and global affairs. Others are dumb as rocks.
This is par for the course in any group of millions of Americans: Some know what they’re talking about; others just like to talk. Wearing a uniform — or having once worn a uniform — doesn’t make someone uniquely qualified to evaluate political candidates.”
Someone is actually paying her for writing this drivel? I don’t know a freshman lit, history, or debate professor that would accept this as anything but fluff and “others just like to talk.”
And I believe that military folks having served or interacted with areas where policy is being executed have a unique perspective that stagnant think-tank types couldn’t begin to comprehend.
Exactly.
So, by this bitch’s metric, police officers don’t know anything about crime and shouldn’t be asked for their opinions about it, right? How convenient, given that street cops are overwhelmingly pro-2A.
Jonn nailed it. Her real argument is that she’s smarter than everyone else because she says so, kinda like a certain someone we know.
No. First; a cop is not necessarily an expert on crime.
Second, she never said “veterans don’t know anything”. She said they are not necessarily foreign policy experts.
Well, you obviously weren’t, at least. And I never used the word “expert.” And I wasn’t asking you, either, dipshit. Fuck off and slither back into your hole.
Well, hell, I’m convinced I earned everything I have and will continue to receive. I went places and saw and did things she knows only anecdotally. Hers is a veiled (?) attempt to disrespect military personnel. Why? Jealousy? Didn’t she qualify for military service. I dislike these think tank twinks (TTT) who know sooo much more than us peons and make sure we are aware of the ‘fact’.
One of the things that bothers me about these kinds of stories is that there has been a gradual sea change in the level of control the State Department has over the Department of Defense.
Will Rogers once said, “Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘Nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.”
His point being, I suppose, that once you pick up the rock, you no longer have to say “nice doggie.”
An example of what I’m talking about is the photo of Hillary Clinton having the vapors in the situation room while Osama bin Laden was getting his ticket punched by Seal Team 6. Can somebody explain to those of us on the short bus why she was even there? Once you declare weapons free, the time for negotiation is over.
Brooks’ comments are a distraction from a deeper issue.
Its called “Photo Op!” and she’s even used that picture in campaign commercials I’ve seen to remind everyone she was a part of something good.
Listening to some of the things she’s said during her campaign, anything that went right in the government she was involved in. anything that went wrong, was someone else’s fault. Just like Benghazi was someone else’s fault.
I’d listen to Rosa Parks before Rosa Brooks…
Word.
I’d also choose Rosie Palm over Rosa Brooks for another endeavor.
As a current high school teacher, I do not understand these liberals who put teaching on the same plane as soldiering.
Do teachers risk getting their legs blown off on deployment? Do they risk death? As much as you hear about teachers working long hours, do they leave their families for month at a time? Do they go on weeks of field exercises in their off time? No. That’s why the military gets greater respect and benefits, and if you never served, I wouldn’t expect you to know.
Teaching is a good and important job, don’t get me wrong. But the attempts I see, whether from liberal journalists or from leaders in my own district, to act as if it is THE most important job in the world, no thanks. Be humble, do your job and go on your way.
Just a word here about “experts.” The term is being bandied about as if it was something extraordinary. An expert is merely one who has intimate knowledge of something, usually well beyond that of the average person. One needn’t have a degree to be an expert in something. Between a Ford Motor Company exec and a local garage mechanic, the expert in car repair and automotive know-how is most likely the local mechanic. Whatshername sets up a bullshit issue in order to tear it down. Who said that Veterans are presumed to be foreign policy experts? She did. Who took umbrage at that? She did. Methinks she is full of shit and just needed another entry for her ‘publication’ list.
“X” = an unknown
“spurt” = a drip under pressure.
________
x-spurt = an unknown drip under pressure.
I like your thinking–which one of us should find frightening.
PhD: Piled High & Deep. Took a course once in Tudor & Stuart History. Henry VIII and William & Mary and a host of others. First day the professor tells us he has a PhD in European History with an emphasis in the history of Great Britain and a concentration in Tudor & Stuart History. He said, and I’ll paraphrase, “What I know of history is an inch wide and 10 miles deep. If you ask about history of U.S. or any other part of the world, I probably won’t know the answer.” That’s been my experience with many with a PhD … they know damn near everything about a sliver of whatever, and often little else. Not all, but many. This lady sets up a scenario and then begins to dismantle it. Yes, I read the links, also. Seems she has a ‘publish or perish’ mentality that requires something, anything be put in print.
Anyway, I had an open mind until reading, “If political candidates could wear live service members as lapel pins, I’m sure they’d do so.” I’m sure she thought she was being cute but she has not earned the right to consign us to insignificance. I feel it was an attempt to disrespect the military in a not-so-subtle manner. Shame …
Once again, this is sure to unpopular: Of course she is right. Being a veteran doesn’t necessarily make one a foreign policy expert. I would take it one step further and say that perpetuating that perception will eventually erode the hard earned respect that the military enjoys. The generals who allow themselves to be called experts are doing the most damage. For one thing, very few people in the military ever come close to forming or even advising foreign policy. Yes, the military enacts or enforces the nation’s policy through force of arms or deterrence, but that does not necessarily require any foreign policy expertise. There are two great contemporary examples. For one thing, both candidates boasted their list of general officer endorsements as part of the run up to the recent CiC forum. Trump had 88, Hilary had 95 (or something like that). Without getting into the details of their respective policy stances, they are so far apart that one of these two groups of GO/FOs is WAY wrong in their support. How can both groups be considered experts? The best example, I think, is everyone’s favorite Naval officer, who not only allowed the vessels under his command to be captured, but then violated the Code of Conduct (and many would say his oath as an officer) by openly apologizing on Iranian T.V. If all veterans are foreign policy experts, then so is he. This is important, because he claims that he prevented a war with Iran: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/12/punished-u-s-navy-officer-believes-he-prevented-a-war-with-iran/. Look, on this site we are often angered and outraged when a legitimate veteran claims a badge or ribbon they didn’t earn, and rightfully so. It chips away at the credibility of all veterans. fOne of the common threads tin these cases is that no one ever questions the poser’s story- it is taken at face value because they are a veteran (or pretend to be). In fact, some of the worst cases (in my opinion, anyway) are those where a fake veteran claims to be a counter terrorism or foreign policy expert. Does this mean that no veterans have foreign… Read more »
“Of course she is right. Being a veteran doesn’t necessarily make one a foreign policy expert.”
And being a lawyer doesn’t necessarily make one a Constitutional scholar. And having a driver’s license doesn’t necessarily make one an expert on driving. And being able to draw doesn’t necessarily make one an authority on art. And being able to play a musical instrument doesn’t necessarily make one an expert musician. I think that’s enough. So f’n what is her point? To state and belabor the obvious? Towards what end? Jonn suggests one answer and I see no reasonable counter to that.
“So f’n what is her point?”
Exactly….it’s her motivation to do so and the way she expresses the idea. I mean dayamm…how far must one go to rationalize her writing to not see it for what it is. lol
It is amazing to me how much certain people go to interpret and explain what she wrote when she was quite capable of making whatever case she wished clearly and plainly herself but did not do so. Instead we get “icky” and writing that mimics a drunken Chinaman in a fire drill. (Hey, I’m a deplorable. That gives me license to talk that way!)
Her point is that putting every veteran on a pedestal and accepting their word at face value simply because they are a veteran is dangerous.
It’s amazing to me as well. I understood her at first reading, while some still seem to be confused.
Your comment prompted me to re-read her little piece. I guess you have special abilities to see what others cannot. I read her words and saw no such thing as you described. She concocted a false narrative regarding Veterans, that we regard ourselves (or others regard us) as political sages, uniquely qualified to make political judgments. She then poo-pooed that construct of hers. I see nothing in her words warning of danger. I do, however, see a great deal of resentment, delivered in a very smug and condescending fashion.
You don’t have to be a foreign policy expert to understand that leaving a country without ensuring some kind of stabilization over a long period was a bad idea.
You also don’t have to be a foreign policy expert to understand that if you don’t kill the enemy before they can establish a foothold in a country (while the “policy-makers” say that military forces will eventually withdraw) will only create a vacuum.
Military folks DO have a unique perspective because they oftentimes predict the result of what the unintended consequences of poor ideas (aka “foreign policy”) will be.
After Paul Bremmer announced the Iraqi army would be dismantled, both MARCENT and CENTCOM predicted the insurgency. “Policy makers” didn’t want to hear that because it didn’t fit whatever the narrative was at the time.
Even General Shinseki said the U.S. wouldn’t have enough troops to maintain stability of Iraq after Baghdad fell. What happened? Riots and looting.
What happened after stability wasn’t maintained? (Everyone here except the Commissar and lady who wrote that article know the answer to that).
Over the long term, what eventually happened?
(Those were rhetorical questions).
“Some of those service members and vets are smart, thoughtful, and sophisticated about politics, policy, and global affairs. Others are dumb as rocks.”
Apparently, so are many academics.
^^^^Nice.
Thank you, Nicki!
🙂
Got to love those “Ivory Tower” types that don’t have the sense God gave a goose and know everything because they have an “education”.
Fucking idiots…
Perhaps not, but non-veterans (and non-military people, in general) are behind veterans at foreign policy anyway.
According to Wikipedia: “She is married to Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Mouer,[21] an Army Special Forces officer.”
I wonder if she includes him in the basket of “dumb rocks?”