4 ms·
It's interesting to see that as of the time I'm writing this, half the top-level comments in this thread are being downvoted. I am NOT writing in support of th
by gwerbret 2y ago
It's interesting to see that as of the time I'm writing this, half the top-level comments in this thread are being downvoted.
I am NOT writing in support of the current slash-and-burn approach to government, but I suspect that the downvoted half are addressing a significant deficiency in this article -- it doesn't mention what has been meaningfully accomplished by the Minerva Initiative in 17 years, given that the program had a fairly discrete set of objectives. Did they prevent any terrorist attacks? Did they forestall any destabilizing uprisings in significant countries? Did they develop a real and actionable understanding of radicalization or similar movements?
This is not to say that those accomplishments don't exist (I wouldn't know, I'd never heard of the program before), but it's extraordinarily lazy writing by a supposedly-premier science publication for these not to be identified and highlighted, if they exist.
Edit: clarity.
- ethbr1 2y agoThat's not the program's goal. >> The Minerva Research Initiative supports social science research aimed at improving our basic understanding of security, broadly defined. [...] The goal is to improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the U.S. [0] The emphasis here is on background, that should then better inform regional DoD strategy, that will then... well, 'not screw up things like Iraq' seems a fair summary. For the amounts, this seems like an excellent use of DoD money. Throwing military hardware and soldier time/lives away in pursuit of doomed to fail goals is expensive and often counterproductive. Fight smarter, not harder. [0] https://minerva.defense.gov/ https://minerva.defense.gov/