Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
Exit Kip
September 12, 2008 | Posted by Kip - 12:00am | 44 Comments
Nine months ago I sent a brief email to Andrew Exum and Erin Simpson entitled an "immodest proposal." I had just finished a yearlong tour in Afghanistan and was frustrated at the occasional incoherence and the atrocious resourcing of our advisor mission in the key front of the war against Al Qaeda. I had been turned on to Abu Muqawama some months earlier by my friend and mentor Dr. John Nagl, and I realized that the tone of the discussion (and some of the fresh, irreverent youthfulness of it) and the small and growing following it was getting in some important circles offered an opportunity to effect change to our approach to conflict in the 21st Century. Writing in this forum on the Long War would be an opportunity to decompress healthily from some of the stresses of a combat zone, to highlight strategic issues I believed needed more consideration--particularly with regard to the advisor mission, to think through my own understanding of contemporary conflict, and to improve my writing. My "immodest proposal" was to add a third voice to the AM-Charlie duet. They agreed. "Kip" was born. In an instant, the capacity of this blog to intelligently discuss matters of baseball was diminished by one third.
Thank you Abu Muqawama and Charlie for giving me the opportunity to free ride off your success in creating this forum.
It has been a great experience. I have learned a tremendous amount from my co-bloggers and my readers. Thank you to all of you for the robust and intelligent contributions on the front page and in the comments sections. And while I owe a list of personal thanks several pages long, I wish to thank in particular Dave Dilegge of Small Wars Journal who reached out to me when I looked like I might be moving down the wrong path in my own writing on these pages and helped me correct course.
It's been a great ride, but it's time to move on.
Another mentor of mine, too shy to be thanked on this page, once described to me three types of professional Army officers: outside-outsiders, outside-insiders, and inside-insiders. At some point, he told me, all those who wish to leave their stamp on the organization have to decide into which camp they will fall, and each has its own perils and rewards. The inside-insider may move far in his career and be able to change the organization from the top--but he's just as likely to lose his soul in the process and becomes inured to innovation by his dumbness in the face of organizational flaws. The outside-insider can generally only reach the margins of power within the organization and is stopped there. Occasionally one goes onto greater things, and oftentimes, outside-insiders are the contrarian voices that help drive slow change within the organization. Finally there are the outside-outsiders. They have a freer voice and a freer hand and occasionally have the opportunity to launch revolutionary change from the outside. More often, they fall into punditry. Importantly, the outside-outsider often lacks credibility and standing within the organization itself.
I am constitutionally incapable of serving as an inside-insider, which leaves me only two paths. As "Kip" I have been an outside-outsider, writing behind a wall of anonymity even as in my day job I try to fulfill the role of outside-insider. I am learning, however, that the two cannot live an entirely peaceful co-existence. The current configuration constrains my ability to directly influence the Army in order to maintain whatever indirect influence I gain through this forum. I wish to re-balance and vigorously participate within the organizational debate about the future of the profession of arms. In order to do that, I need to stop being "Kip" for now.
A friend of mine once described trying to move the Army as being akin to the sport of Curling. "You see," he said in response to my frustration at a particular act of bureaucracy, "the Army is this big stone. It's already been set in motion in a particular direction, and you can't change that initial push. All you can do is sweep furiously with that broom and have the patience to hope you affect the trajectory just a little bit."
It's been fun to step out of the game for a while, but it's time to get back to the hard work of furiously sweeping. For now, goodbye, and, perhaps, see ya later.
Kip
Thank you Abu Muqawama and Charlie for giving me the opportunity to free ride off your success in creating this forum.
It has been a great experience. I have learned a tremendous amount from my co-bloggers and my readers. Thank you to all of you for the robust and intelligent contributions on the front page and in the comments sections. And while I owe a list of personal thanks several pages long, I wish to thank in particular Dave Dilegge of Small Wars Journal who reached out to me when I looked like I might be moving down the wrong path in my own writing on these pages and helped me correct course.
It's been a great ride, but it's time to move on.
Another mentor of mine, too shy to be thanked on this page, once described to me three types of professional Army officers: outside-outsiders, outside-insiders, and inside-insiders. At some point, he told me, all those who wish to leave their stamp on the organization have to decide into which camp they will fall, and each has its own perils and rewards. The inside-insider may move far in his career and be able to change the organization from the top--but he's just as likely to lose his soul in the process and becomes inured to innovation by his dumbness in the face of organizational flaws. The outside-insider can generally only reach the margins of power within the organization and is stopped there. Occasionally one goes onto greater things, and oftentimes, outside-insiders are the contrarian voices that help drive slow change within the organization. Finally there are the outside-outsiders. They have a freer voice and a freer hand and occasionally have the opportunity to launch revolutionary change from the outside. More often, they fall into punditry. Importantly, the outside-outsider often lacks credibility and standing within the organization itself.
I am constitutionally incapable of serving as an inside-insider, which leaves me only two paths. As "Kip" I have been an outside-outsider, writing behind a wall of anonymity even as in my day job I try to fulfill the role of outside-insider. I am learning, however, that the two cannot live an entirely peaceful co-existence. The current configuration constrains my ability to directly influence the Army in order to maintain whatever indirect influence I gain through this forum. I wish to re-balance and vigorously participate within the organizational debate about the future of the profession of arms. In order to do that, I need to stop being "Kip" for now.
A friend of mine once described trying to move the Army as being akin to the sport of Curling. "You see," he said in response to my frustration at a particular act of bureaucracy, "the Army is this big stone. It's already been set in motion in a particular direction, and you can't change that initial push. All you can do is sweep furiously with that broom and have the patience to hope you affect the trajectory just a little bit."
It's been fun to step out of the game for a while, but it's time to get back to the hard work of furiously sweeping. For now, goodbye, and, perhaps, see ya later.
Kip
Add your comment