Mission Control – writing a Harvard thesis

I gathered about seven ALM Social Sciences proposals (including the Manual’s examples) to review during this phase of the thesis. That’s been very helpful. I can see how other students put their thoughts on paper; created a coherent, interesting flow for their ideas; organized them; wove in the scholars, other experts, and reports and/or data on their topic. There are some typos and foonote goofs (proofreading wasn’t perfect) but anyone who’s written a long paper, thesis, etc. will appreciate that after a while you can’t proof your own work — it’s too familiar. Apparently, even the faculty member didn’t pick up the errors. They are few and far between — this isn’t a criticism, it’s actually a bit heartening to see that no one’s work is perfect (and these are small problems).

There are several sections in the Proposal. The two key parts: the Research Problem (should be no more than 2-3 pages) and the Background (varies in length, 5-10 pages). I have my draft of the Research Problem out for critique by colleagues. I’ve got the Background section half done. The next few days I’m away for a brief vacation. When I get back, I will finish the Background draft and send it out to the same readers for feedback. Then it’s off to Dr. O for the initial submission by the second week of May.

As I read over my lit. reviews (sooo many), I have been able to eliminate ones that aren’t on point and focus on those related to my question. But researching my topic (armed contractors on the battlefield in OIF) over several months meant that I read a LOT on various aspect of military contracting: the history of it in the U.S., esp. since Viet Nam and the end of the Cold War; the rise of private military firms in the 1990s; the reasons why the U.S. military turned to contractors in the 1990s; military doctrine, instructions, regulations, guides, etc. on contractors (for both military personnel and the contractors themselves); and, military articles and theses as well as scholarly materials (Singer, Avant, Isenberg) on the topic. All that as mere background for the main show: OIF, the first use of armed security contractors by the U.S. on the battlefield. There’s plenty of reading on that now but almost none yet that focuses on operational coordination. (I’ve also been interviewing a mix of civil-mil folks for background, context, and OIF experiences — more fun than working alone with my books).

One thorn in my side has been the bibliography – mine has been long-ish (9 pages) and Dr. O has cautioned me to cut it down to 4-5. Yet, as I look at ALM Proposal examples and my friend’s finished thesis (250 pages with a 10 page biblio), I’m feeling better with the 7 pages it’s at now. I’m convinced the ALM Manual examples, with their 1.5 – 2 page biblios, have been intentionally cropped so students will think that’s appropriate. Typically, when I write a 20 page paper, I have a page and a half (approx) biblio. So for a 100 page thesis, I can see that 4-5 pages is not ridiculous or bloated. (All of this is relative, of course. It depends on your topic, how complicated it is, how much material you need to make your points, etc.).

Twice this week, as I’ve skimmed my lit. reviews and drafted up half of the proposal, I’ve felt renewed confidence in the project. Back in Feb. and March, slogging through all the lit. reviews was like slowly going through a long tunnel. Not fun and seemingly never-ending. It’s great to pick up speed again and exercise my writing skills more. For the first time, as I put the proposal together, I have a concrete product to show for my efforts that will go out into the world.

This is a funny experience. Not funny “ha, ha”; funny peculiar. One day you’re burdened under a task that feels sisyphisian (look it up, everyone has days like this). A few days later, you’re free of the weight and cruising along! Up and down it goes. For a while, I thought the lit. review phase would never end. The important point is that you do break free eventually. If you keep plugging away at it and keep your mind open to ways of working smarter, then things really do move forward. Sometimes suddenly. The fact it’s spring and things are going from brown to green in a day…also lifts my spirits.

The Sunday NYT reported on retired military generals who went on various networks for years to ‘objectively report’ on their understanding of what was happening in Iraq. Recruited by SecDef Rumsfeld, given access to classified materials, they were sent out to be “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” . As the Center for Media and Democracy said tonight on Lehrer News, this was a psyops effort and such a propoganda effort is illegal. (I see it dovetailing perfectly with the many stories that have come out about this Administration paying journalists to promote its agenda.) Certainly, the Office of Strategic Communication at the Pentagon must be busy!

One quote from the article

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.

As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.

“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”

The networks never disclosed that the generals had ties to military contractors – some of whom benefit from participating in the war effort. Perhaps the networks didn’t want to know. When asked by PBS to participate in tonight’s segment on this story, all of them passed (and it was a long list).

Another point in the article

Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”

Who cares about the facts anymore? I guess ’support the troops’ means only if its convenient to the Administration’s ideological agenda. Too often it hasn’t meant give them the resources, protection, or health care they need. It’s easy to support the troops if all it requires is a smile and an ‘atta boy’ in passing; it doesn’t mean support only the troops who shut up and tow the Administration’s line with gusto. Kudos to the soldier in Iraq who stood up to SecDef Rumsfeld several years ago and questioned why the Pentagon wasn’t supplying up-armored vehicles and they had to scrounge around junk yards for makeshift stuff? “You go to war with the Army you’ve got” has to be one of the most insulting replies I’ve ever heard.

Thankfully, SecDef Rumsfeld is gone.

Pet peeve: academic writers (students and pros) use way too many footnotes these days.

As I was writing up the Background section of my proposal yesterday and hunting through some key articles (including other students’ theses), I noted the voluminous number of footnotes in these pieces. I’d find a great stat to use or quote on point and it would be from someone else’s work. That happened way too frequently; several of the papers had footnotes galore. Just one example: one paragraph in a paper had a footnote with every sentence! Ok, that’s ridiculous. A loose rule I’ve learned at Harvard is ‘two footnotes/page’. Per PAGE!

For the thesis, if you find a footnote for information you want to use, you have to track the original down. That’s when you go down a rabbit hole. Whatever train of thought and ‘flow’ you were in…gone by the time you come back with the original information.

My theory about this flood of footnotes? In this age of plagiarism and internet access, people are overly sensitive about being accused of the former and they have access to many more articles, etc. via the latter, hence the over-use of footnotes. Where’s the original thinking? Let’s have more of the writer’s thoughts and analysis and less of the ‘cut and paste’ stuff.

I went to a session on diplomatic security and the use of private security contractors (PSCs) at Harvard yesterday afternoon. A former executive of a private security company gave the hour-long talk. Some thoughts and info to share:

1. There were only five students in the audience. Granted it was a beautiful day and exams are coming but this was a great opportunity to ask questions and learn more about the topic. I wonder if private contractors in Iraq have dropped off the radar again for most people? I’m extrapolating from a very small sample but still, if graduate students in public policy programs don’t come to this kind of talk, how do you get average Americans engaged with it?

2. Ambassador Bremer was originally guarded in Iraq by CID (criminal investigation division). When the Secret Service did a threat assessment and concluded Bremer was the most targeted American, Blackwater was brought in to upgrade his security. [sidenote: that was the beginning of the eventual surge of armed contractors in OIF].

3. The speaker strongly believes the U.S. needs to have a public debate about the use of these private actors on the battlefield. He recommends the Webb-McCaskill Commission as a good start. (From Senator Webb’s website: “Establishes an independent, bipartisan eight-member Commission on Wartime Contracting to study and investigate federal agency contracting for: (1) the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan; (2) the logistical support of coalition forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; and (3) the performance of security and intelligence functions in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.“) [A sidenote: many private security contractors do not like Rep. Waxman or his Oversight Committee when it comes to debating this topic.]

4. He went on to say that there hasn’t been a good cost-benefit analysis done yet either.

5. The U.S. needs to decided if certain government functions are a ‘public value’ or a ‘public process’. If the latter, they should not be outsourced. First, we, as a country, need to talk about capacity and what’s required; next, how do we do that. If we don’t have this discussion, we’ll ‘default’ to using private contractors.

6. None of this (armed contractors in a U.S. conflict zone) has happened before. We’re trying to work things out as we go, building a moving train, as it were.

7. He alluded to the need for more symmetry between the type of military operation the U.S. is conducting in OIF and how the PSCs operate. In the beginning, the U.S. did a conventional ‘hunt and kill’ military operation, but when it switched to a ‘hearts and mind’ counterinsurgency, the tactics of some PSCs were more easily viewed as out of synch and counterproductive.

8. A couple of students asked questions on how BW would operate in Darfur. His biggest suggestion – overwatch in the sky so we can see the attacks coming. This would be effective however only if there are forces on the ground to repel them. There’s too much political fighting and disagreement — so let’s stop the killing first and then figure out a political solution.

A friend of mine who’s finished his thesis (over 200 pages and a 10 page biblio) just showed me his original proposal. It’s about 30 pages. John (alias) also sent me his ’second’ proposal (which was a third longer). Second proposal ? There’s no such thing. Ah, but there can be! Ok – here’s a twist I hadn’t heard of but good to know this could happen. Here’s his story:

- his initial proposal (over 30 pages) was accepted by the Thesis Advisor. Good to go, right? Noooo.

- once he got his Thesis Director (TD), she had John re-write the proposal to reflect new methodology and quite a bit of additional reading.

- John’s second proposal was now 45 pages long. More focused, yes, but also more work. And the 9-month thesis clock is ticking whilst he’s still working on the proposal!

I must add that John liked his TD very much and enjoyed the research (for the most part). However, the final length of the thesis is over twice the ’suggested’ length.

So now we know you might have to do two proposals….

From the current Secrecy blog:

SOME CLASSIFIED DOD ASSETS ARE TOO SECRET TO PROTECT

In a stark illustration of how secrecy may undermine rather than
reinforce security, the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Defense has omitted many of its most sensitive assets from critical infrastructure protection planning because they are too secret to be identified. [italics mine].

“DOD has not taken adequate steps to ensure that highly sensitive
critical assets associated with SCI and SAPs are accounted for,” the
GAO reported last week. SCI means sensitive compartmented information that is derived from intelligence sources. SAPs are special access programs.

The Defense Intelligence Agency, for example, has withheld a list of
over 80 critical assets.

Thank god for GAO.

Went to this month’s thesis writers’ group last night. Couple of tidbits:

1. a question that has come up a few times: should the thesis writer copyright her thesis? The consensus (and Dr. O.’s advice) – not necessary but if it makes you feel better, put the © symbol, along with the date, on the second page.

2. a friend of mine just handed her in final thesis for Dr. O.’s formatting review. It is 250 pages. I asked her how long her biblio was — 10 pages. So my struggle to cut mine down to 4 may not be necessary.

3. Dr. O. reminded everyone that a good way to approach the thesis work is to try to actively refute your argument. That way you’ll find the flaws and if it holds up, so much the better.

4. Dr. O. said there have been forty theses submitted in the past three graduation cycles and he has over seven to read for this June. This kind of amazes me since it doesn’t jibe with the ‘graduation rate’ data we’ve heard. I believe Dr. O.’s numbers so I’m actually encouraged; seems the number of grads is higher than we think.

5. Anyone hoping to graduate in June, 2009 should have attended the February meeting. That’s the first meeting of the semester which also is the one in which Dr. O. outlines, in-depth, the thesis time line and process, from initial idea to final submission. He covers a broad range of issues and answers all kinds of questions. If you only go to one meeting a semester, go to the first one (Sept. or Feb.).

6. Two items not mentioned last night but good to know:

a) the ALM Manual is several years old with some advice that should be updated. For instance, in the proposal section where it instructs you to include a paragraph covering “my anticipated conclusion is…” — scratch that. Instead, talk about why this study is important. It’s not great form to talk about your anticipated conclusion when you’re still in the thick of it.

b) remember to annotate the “works consulted” section of your biblio in the proposal. One line per item is fine.

Just got notice of this new piece of info on Blackwater’s contract with Dept. of State in Iraq.