Military Review English Edition September-October 2014 - Page 88

successful. However, the Army must be careful to avoid its previous mistakes of using social scientists for what has been dubbed less than moral reasons by those in the academic arena. Any attempt by the Army to co-opt or use the work of social scientists for political or military operational reasons may be seen as another attempt to misuse or exploit them, widening the existing chasm and ruining any attempt we may try to close it. Focusing efforts in this area has the additional practical effect of providing a strong fiduciary argument for the Army as we compete for relevance against a tide of budget cuts and fiscal constraints that can be expected to continue. More importantly, it provides a conceptual framework for dealing with the real world as it is evolving and the actual threats we are likely to face in the foreseeable future. Thus it must be taken seriously as the help of experts from fields like psychology, U.S. Army Capt. Steven Pyles speaks with local residents during a counter anthropology, sociology, and other social indirect fire patrol near Lalmah Village, Chapahar District, Nangarhar Province, sciences promises real return on investment Afghanistan, 1 September 2013. which will stand up to outside criticism. knowledge to the table. The same must be done with In contrast, if the Army instead falls back—as it experts and academics from the social science comtraditionally does—on relying upon ill-informed advice munity. Inviting more psychologists, anthropologists, from a regular list of current and former politicians, primatologists, and others to Army conferences and fo- and continues to spend its money funding research rums will add a great deal of information on the human contracts with crony for-profit think tanks and retired aspects of strategy and warfare. Along with establishing officers turned lobbyists, the Army’s strategic landpowsuch a group of core social science advisors, the Army er initiative will fail. should conduct a human-domain-specific conference, inviting academics from all the social science fields. Conclusion This forum might provide the Army with additional The Army’s current lack of institutional commitknowledge on topics it missed or previously ignored. ment to expanding its intellectual field of discussion is In short, to actually accomplish the implied objecevident in its professional reading list. Only one book tives of the strategic landpower strategy, we must begin with a subject other than political or military theory to build a network of contacts with key educators and appears: Lt. Col. David Grossman’s On Killing. specialists if we are serious about learning about the The Army must promote expansion of its educahuman domain of warfare. We must look more totional frame of reference and adopt what biologist E. ward institutions like the University of New Mexico’s O. Wilson called his theory of consilience, the bringing Evolutionary Psychology Department and less toward together of all the different fields of study into one the John F. Kennedy’s School of Government in our great synthesis of knowledge.9 development of the human domain. This includes exploring the relevance of previously The same intimate relationship of trust that the untapped resources in the academic world and fields Army has with businesses, industry, and government of study that may seem innocuous or unrelated but entities must be built with the academic world of relatmay still add depth or breadth in unexpected ways. ed social sciences if the human domain concept is to be Similarly, we as an institution have to attempt to forge U.S. Army National Guard 1st Lt. Chad Carlson, 129th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment Currently, the Army pulls a certain core group of academics, scientists, business people, and theorists for its policy and strategy discussions. They are trusted confidants who collectively bring a broad wealth of 86 September-October 2014  MILITARY REVIEW