SWJ Blog Gets it’s Groove Back
….Though quite radical, we may want to revive the British concept of a “shooting leave” (we’ll call it something else of course). During the period of British rule in India, both Company and Government, a “shooting leave” involved a British officer taking a few weeks or months of leave in order to travel through potentially hostile lands and gather information and intelligence, which involved the possibility of shooting or being shot at. For our purposes, our officers ought to be able to take a sabbatical, perhaps no more than 3 to 6 months, and embed themselves in non-governmental organizations (NGO) operating in one of the regions we are interested in (with Doctors Without Borders in Tajikistan for instance) so that he may use/ improve his language capabilities, learn first-hand information about the region he is in, and work with organizations that we may end up dealing with should we become involved in those areas. We may also want to look at embedding in foreign militaries involved in combat operations (Indians in Kashmir, Russians in the Cacausus, etc) or with private military companies (PMCs) operating overseas. These opportunities would allow one to immerse in a local culture, refine language skills, as well observe routine activities (whether in conflict or non-conflict zones) in those areas of interest (a similar idea was proposed by COL (R) Scott Wuestner in his paper Building Partner Capacity/ Security Force Assistance: A New Structural Paradigm, Feb 2009).
The last suggestion is worthy of Coming Anarchy.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Daniel:
August 24th, 2011 at 9:13 am
Wish I could remember which essay it was, but the military intelligence officer Ralph Peters has written about military officers taking "working holidays" into foreign war zones. I believe Peters also traveled in various places himself (pretty sure he went to Chechnya in the 90s). Also, a quick google shows he has a new book (2010) called ‘Looking for Trouble’ that seems to cover some of his trips into different countries.
Daniel:
August 24th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Ugh, the date is actually 2008, so it’s not so new (new to me though).
J.ScottShipman:
August 24th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Hi Daniel, Looking For Trouble is a pretty good read.
Lexington Green:
August 24th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
The Victorian and Edwardian approach worked well for its day. I see no reason that the (similar) era of small wars and insurgencies we are living through now would not also be suitable for this. One quibble, I think that shooting leave referred to hunting as an excuse to visit frontier locations, which opens it up beyond serving where there is intra-human shooting going on.
historyguy99:
August 27th, 2011 at 1:56 am
….Though quite radical, we may want to revive the British concept of a “shooting leave” (we’ll call it something else of course).
Hey, isn’t this what most of NATO has been doing the past 9 years in Afghanistan?
Seriously, a good idea as long as the probing eye of the 24/7 tabloid news cycle doesn’t pull a gotch-ya when our embeds, shoot back or get hit. 19th century British officers never had that to fear during their far ranging travels. They had to wait until a 20th century movie maker changed their role. http://willhutchison.com/blog/2010/01/21/british-military-observers-in-the-american-civil-war/
zen:
August 27th, 2011 at 3:56 am
Excellent point, Professor.