Friday, February 10, 2006

Military History and the Academy

Over at Big Tent Extra Tom has a must read piece in defense of military history. Or, to be more precise, he has a clarion call to military historians to stop apologizing and explaining away what, other historians' ignorance to the contrary, is a vibrant field. I'm as guilty as anyone of having certain stereotypes about military history (and, as an aside to his aside, I would disagree with Tom when he asserts that the most important reasons for success or failure in Iraq will be military; I firmly believe that they will be diplomatic or political). And I certainly pick and choose my emphases when I teach (you have to cherrypick from any subdiscipline in a survey or period-driven class) and in my work on, say, terrorism. That said, Tom's piece really belongs in Perspectives or the OAH newsletter. Read it.

4 comments:

Tom said...

Awww shucks. Thanks.

I know what you mean about the Iraq line. I was pretty torn when I wrote it. I suppose what I mean is that military historians will sort out how the fighting of the war in Iraq actually relates or does not relate to success and failure. If you know what I mean.

dcat said...

That's exactly the kind of response I'd expect fron one of you guns and trumpets military historians. Why don't you guys update your approach? Apologize now!

Tom said...

I'm sorry.

dcat said...

Heh heh. Enabler!