Mission Control – writing a Harvard thesis

A friend pointed me to the following sources on the latest thinking by the candidates on using private security contractors -

1. Foreign Policy’s  blog

2. Hillary Clinton

3. The Nation (J. Scahill)

This is gratifying to know that the issue isn’t off the table. People are still talking about the pros/cons. A reasonable debate on a new variable (armed contractors) in a combat zone is important. It spurs me to ‘write faster’ while it’s still relevant — if Congress succeeds in banning them (which I highly doubt), my thesis would become a ‘history’ document and not a poli. sci. paper with policy recommendations : (

Clinton’s press release and the ‘outrage’ contained therein seem like posturing to grab a headline as opposed to really grappling with a genuine issue. Having armed contractors in a combat zone, even well-trained and equipped, certainly leaves some room for intelligent and rational discussion as to the benefits, alternatives, and regulation. (BTW, not for nothing but when she was in Iraq, did she ever have BW do her PSD?)

One of my fellow ALM students, Ian Lamont, who is about to graduate any minute, has just written a great blog post about the uphill climb of doing the thesis. Being at the ‘end of the beginning’ of my process (topic approved, still putting the proposal together), I appreciate his insights about how hard it is doing it ’solo’. It gives me a ‘reality check’ that it’s not me. Any grad. student who says he never has any doubts in the process is lying (or kidding himself)!

For instance, Ian talks about the thesis being

“mostly self-directed. Students have to conduct the initial research inquiries, choose topics, and compose thesis proposals on their own, and follow the guidance of the research advisor and thesis director in terms of conducting additional research and developing the thesis itself. “

Indeed, the fact that thesis work is mostly self-directed can’t be stressed enough and presents a particular (if not unique) problem for Extension students. Certainly, grad. students are expected to work independently but in Extension, it’s taken to an extreme because there are very few of us who go full-time, very few of us are teaching assistants, and no one (to my knowledge) has a research assistantship with an office and fellow students to confer with sharing that space (unlike several of my friends @ KSG, Brown, and Fletcher who have regular contact and feedback from fellow students). In Extension, none of us know each other, beyond small talk in a class once in a while.

So each of us who is in the thesis pipeline is working out there alone, w/little or no campus interaction (going to Widener doesn’t count, still a solo effort), no opportunities for mixing with fellow students through TA/RA work, no regular student activities to participate in or lounge to hang out in. I recognize some of the problem is lack of time on ALM students’ part (we are all busy outside of school) but there’s little outreach from the school on this count either (the ALM reception is a nice idea but if you don’t know anyone before arriving, it makes it hard to just ‘jump in’ one night per semester). The thesis writers’ group is good but not frequent enough or attended consistently to make real connections through it. It takes time to develop trust, to feel comfortable enough to discuss vulnerabilities and concerns. I can’t say that I’ve ever heard a fellow ALM admit, “I’m lost in the weeds, can you help me out?”. Who’s going to say that at Harvard and when you haven’t developed a rapport?

This ’self-direction’ is a fundamental element of the experience — something everyone must contend with so I recommend developing a strategy to deal with it sooner rather than later. Aside from one’s intellectual capabilities, if you are not able to motivate yourself (over and over again); develop confidence that you are on the right track; know how to do what’s necessary at each stage of the thesis; and, learn to live with ambiguity, that solitary status can undermine your ultimate success if you have no one who knows what you’re going through to talk it over with. It’s hard to motivate and direct oneself during the periods in the process where you feel a bit lost or overwhelmed (both normal occurrences).

I intentionally sought out a couple of more seasoned graduate students early on to give me feedback and support (none of whom are at Harvard) (BTW, KSG master’s students don’t do a research thesis so the folks I know over there aren’t going through this — they are in an applied program). My friends have been through this step and help me “think out loud” — talk through my ideas . For an extrovert in what is an introverted project that makes my rewrites and finished work much better. It’s not realistic to depend on Dr. O or even the thesis writers’ group for on-going support beyond a minimal level. Dr. O is very busy and the group doesn’t meet often enough to create that deeper connection.

Ian also mentions that the graduation rate for the ALM program (enrolled degree candidates, not in the professional programs) is 52 percent. I bet it’s lower. We all know stats can be manipulated to make a case (I don’t think Ext/Harvard wants to show a small graduation rate in any program). Regardless, that percentage isn’t the story — it’s the reasons why people don’t finish that matter. If the ALM had more resources and institutional support, I bet the grad. rate would be higher. It’s very hard for working adults, some with kids and/or other responsibilities, to get through the whole degree.

To get this far, all but thesis, and not finish — I wish the Ext. School would put more effort into helping those who have made such a commitment, both in time and money, to get that far and to this school and may just need more support in going the last mile. The thesis part is the most lonely; akin to a marathon. But we all need cheerleaders and water stations along the way!

Theses are a few books I got early in the ALM program and recommend:

1. Penguin Dictionary of International Relations - one drawback, it’s a 1998 edition and I don’t think there’s a revised one but it’s still worth having.

2. Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics – 2003 revised edition.

3. Political Science Student Writer’s Manual - Fourth Ed. (Scott, Garrison). Covers different types of writing, including lit reviews, position papers, book reviews, research papers, and policy analysis papers.

4. The U.S. Intelligence Community, Richelson, 5th edition.

5. Beginner’s Guide to World Economy, Epping. Best not to avoid understanding fundamental economic aspects of IR!

When up and coming, mid-career military officers get to go back to school in a coveted ‘fellowship’ slot, one of the duties they take with them is to enhance the public image of the military. They are not only there to learn but also to (softly) instruct. By becoming a National Security Fellow or a Military Fellow at august institutions such as Harvard (and others), the officer is tasked, I suspect explicitly, with the responsibility to make or take opportunities to present a positive image of the military during that year. I have seen that effort in action. I don’t quibble with it unless it’s heavy-handed.

On this topic, I came across an interesting article by a former Public Affairs Officer (PAO) written last November, “Madison Avenue Should Not Replace Military Public Affairs”. He states that since 2005, the Pentagon has increasingly contracted out the work formerly done by military PAOs. In the summer of 2007, DOD asked contractors to monitor media reports and then suggest ways to improve public opinions of the military. The author himself, now in the private sector, passed on bidding for one of these contracts because hiring civilians from an aerospace manufacturer and having them counsel the brass on media coverage seemed ridiculous.

Having an Office of Strategic Influence whose goal is to influence domestic perception, how U.S. citizens see the military, seems…odd. Blending warfare deception techniques into regular media relations pushes Public Affairs into the Big Brother abyss. The author claims that the aforementioned Office no longer exists. Whether it got ‘re-badged’ or not, keep in mind this is the Administration that paid journalists to write sunny (and fake) reports and to damage PBS because it aired a show hosted by (god forbid) Bill Moyers.

As Sec. Gates is a breath of fresh air over SecDef Rumsfeld, let’s hope the military isn’t working to dissemble about its efforts as a rule. I believe it needs secrecy sometimes, but it also needs to build genuine public trust.

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) reported that as of Feb. 6 the Army had put its online Reimer Digital Library of Army publications behind a firewall. After FAS filed a FOIA request for access, the Army reversed course and has decided to make the publications accessible again.

Gotta love the quote on the FAS secrecy blog on this:

“The Army has seen the error of its ways,” said another Defense Department FOIA officer. “Also, they want you to withdraw your FOIA request.”

FAS goes on to say, “the dispute over the shuttered website was reported today in the Washington Post. See “Army Blocks Public’s Access to Documents in Web-Based Library”, February 21:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002830.html”.

Apparently, even those within the military cannot automatically access the library. “I happen to have an AKO account but only because I know someone who was willing to sponsor me,” the Navy official wrote. “It is getting harder and harder to access information within DoD let alone from outside it!” For the full FAS story, here’s the link.

Due to legal action by a Swiss bank, wikileaks has been taken down (in the U.S.). And yet, when one clicks on the BBC article link to wikileaks, it come up under a Belgium site. Booyah for Belgium! (And Germany has it too). So get to it while any of their sites are still up.

Here’s the wiki Belgium info on the injunction:

"BANK JULIUS BAER & CO. LTD, a
                    Swiss entity; and JULIUS BAER BANK
                    AND TRUST CO. LTD, a Cayman Island                 ORDER GRANTING
                    entity,                                            PERMANENT INJUNCTION

                    WIKILEAKS, an entity of unknown form;
                    WIKILEAKS.ORG, an entity of unknown
                    form; DYNADOT, LLC, a California
                    limited liability company; and DOES 1
                    through 10, inclusive,

 Dynadot shall immediately clear and remove all DNS hosting
       records for the wikileaks.org domain name and prevent the
       domain name from resolving to the wikileaks.org website or
       any other website or server other than a blank park page,
       until further order of this Court."

And the USA Today link on the story.

I will happily second Ian Lamont’s advice on this issue. In doing a literature review, you need to plow through so much material. You will be glad to have instituted a system, as early as possible, to keep track of it intelligently. I have adapted his ‘precis’ form to my own preferences and style but it’s substantially the same –

1. basic info on the material (title, author, publisher, etc.)

2. where I found the material (esp. if online)

3. type of item (scholar article/book, military paper, media/tv/radio/dvd); gov/think tank report/research; trade book; primary source doc; etc.

4. thesis

5. evidence

6. structure of the argument

7. bias or ideology

8. if a research study – do some evaluation of it

9. how does this work contribute to the understanding of the problem?

10. strengths/weaknesses of material

11. quote worth noting:

11. how does this material relate to my specific thesis question?

There are two kinds of people out there. I’m the kind who needs to be organized in order to think clearly and proceed with confidence. This ‘tool’ is for all those others out there like me.

Last week I received an email from someone who said he had been referred to me through a friend who saw my post on an international security professional association blog from last Sept. He is writing a paper on Blackwater and wanted to chat. I had posted a query to see if any other scholars or experts were interested in talking with me about private security contractors. For the most part, I’ve found those experts to discuss my thesis with through direct contact or referrals from fellow students, not through that listserv posting.

The email caught my eye for its brash informality. The subject line seemed abrupt and too friendly (the way he worded it, I thought it was spam at first) rather than making the first approach more professional – had he used his university email (instead of gmail) and skipped the slang, it wouldn’t have raised a red flag for me. But the content of his email gave me pause also. He clearly had a bias, against Blackwater, which isn’t the way poli. sci. students enter into a research project – you should go into it fairly neutral. (As Don says, if you want to make a point, write an OpEd).

After replying, I have heard nothing back. I suspect he’s for real but he should be more aware of first impressions.

My point is – if you are making contacts while conducting research — keep it professional. At least the first go-round. You want people to take you seriously and engage with you. It can become informal once a connection is established.

My main topic from the beginning (couple of years ago) has been contractors on the battlefield in modern times. Since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), I narrowed it down to armed contractors. Over the past six months, I have worked on two different angles under the topic of armed contractors in OIF:

1. the counterinsurgency and

2. the interagency process.

The first idea led to the second, in a quiet, unplanned way…as I see in hindsight. So all that reading and research hasn’t gone to waste. It did lead me towards this idea. I have three elements in the problem: private security contractors, the interagency process, and leadership/governmental politics (G. Allison’s Model III).
I’ve been reading and thinking about my subject for several months. Only recently did I begin to wonder about it from a different angle. That opened up some new reading and brought me to a more substantive problem.

Based on advice I got a while back to write an outline before doing the whole proposal, I put the outline together last week, discussed it with a knowledgeable friend and scholar (thanks, Ita) who gave me some good feedback on how to organize it better (one other honorable mention in the ‘feedback and advice’ category – Erik D.). This afternoon, I brought it to my thesis advisor, Don. He gave it a read and pronounced it quite good. (That was gratifying). He urged me to get the proposal draft in soon; he is so busy reading completed theses for final editing in April that proposals don’t get looked at until May. Then, we talked about possible thesis directors; two names top the list. Either would be fine.

Now I have to finish my lit review and aim to get the proposal in by late March. But for today, to quote the great Dr. Venkman, “it’s Miller time!”

In reading a story in the NYT on alleged cross-border operations by US forces in Iraq into Syria and Iran in 2005, I came across this new website, Wikileaks. Have to wonder if it’s legit. Three possibilities come to mind – it’s very brave, it’s very naive, it’s a front (the first two are not mutually exclusive). Hard to tell which yet.

They say they are not connected to Wikipedia legally (for obvious reasons). They claim to have gathered 1.2 million documents so far. Under the question on ‘who is Wikileaks’, the answer is:

“Wikileaks was founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.

Our public Advisory Board, which is still in formation, includes courageous journalists, representatives from refugee communities, ethics and anti-corruption campaigners, including a former national head of Transparency International, human rights campaigners, lawyers and cryptographers.

There are currently over 1,200 registered volunteers, but we need more people involved at an organizational level.”

If it’s legit, I’d check it out before some documents disappear because having that kind of distribution portal for classified military and government materials means there will be a bull’s-eye on them soon. (Even though they say they focus on Asia, there are lots of docs about Gitmo — the US is clearly one of their targets. And on OIF, see “ROE for US in Iraq” doc).

The one nagging problem with credibility: unlike wikipedia, it’s a website with content that readers can’t independently verify. Due to the nature of their work, they themselves don’t have any transparency, which doesn’t mean they aren’t for real. But, in a catch-22, you have to take their word for it that they are.