British Captain Resigns from Military to Publish Book on Helmand Failures
Today marks the launch in London of a book titled “An Intimate War: An Oral History of the Helmand Conflict, 1978-2012”. The book’s author is Dr. Mike Martin. Until Monday, he was known as Captain Mike Martin. In order to publish the book, however, he resigned from the military when it refused to grant him permission to publish the book, which the military ironically had initially commissioned from Martin.
From the Guardian:
A captain in the Territorial Army has resigned after a dispute with the Ministry of Defence over a book he has written that is critical of the conduct of the campaign in Afghanistan’s Helmand province.
The MoD commissioned the book by Dr Mike Martin, but took exception to parts of the account. The dispute has gone on for more than a year.
In a statement, the MoD said it “has a strong record of learning from previous campaigns and encourages its officers to challenge existing norms and conventional wisdom. However, the publication of books and articles by serving military personnel is governed by well-established policy and regulations. When these are breached, the MoD will withhold approval.”
We get more from BBC:
Mr Martin studied Helmand for six years and completed an Army-funded PhD at King’s College in London.
He told the BBC Nato troops did not understand the “complexities” of Afghan tribal conflicts and were “manipulated” by tribal leaders fighting over land and water.
“This meant that we often made the conflict worse, rather than better,” he wrote in the study.
Mr Martin said he was originally told his final thesis could not be published as a book because it made use of secret cables published by Wikileaks and classified materials.
But for now it looks as though his resignation will make it possible for Martin to go ahead with the book launch:
But he denied the book contained any intelligence material that was not in the public domain.
Last week, he was then told by his commanding officer that he was “not authorised to published the book”.
He resigned on Monday and will launch the book in London on Wednesday night.
The MoD said the department had accepted the material in the book did not contravene the Official Secrets Act.
More information on the book and Martin’s research for it is found in the King’s College announcement for a seminar tomorrow:
An Intimate War tells the story of the last thirty-five years of conflict in Helmand Province, Afghanistan as seen through the eyes of the Helmandis. In theWest, this period is often defined through different lenses—the Soviet intervention, the civil war, the Taliban, and the post-2001 nation-building era. Yet, as experienced by local inhabitants, the Helmand conflict is a perennial one, involving the same individuals, families and groups, and driven by the same arguments over land, water and power.
This book—based on both military and research experience in Helmand and 150 interviews in Pushtu—offers a very different view of Helmand from those in the mainstream. It demonstrates how outsiders have most often misunderstood the ongoing struggle in Helmand and how, in doing so, they have exacerbated the conflict, perpetuated it and made it more violent—precisely the opposite of what was intended when their interventions were launched.
Dr. Mike Martin is a Pushtu speaker who spent almost two years in Helmand as a British army officer (covering Operation HERRICKs 9-16). During that time, he pioneered and developed the British military’s Human Terrain and Cultural Capability—a means to understanding the Helmandi population and influencing it. He also worked as an advisor to several British commanders of Task Force Helmand. His previous publications include A Brief History of Helmand, required reading for British commanders and intelligence staff deploying to the province. He holds a doctorate in War Studies from King’s College London.
Well, at least Martin didn’t have to leak his book to Rolling Stone to get it published. Informing the military of its own mistakes and hubris never seems to go well. As we are seeing now with Mike Martin in the UK and saw previously with Daniel Davis in the US, the military takes active steps to block such publications. And then sometimes it even goes so far as retroactively classifying material that is found to be embarrassing. I hope to get a chance to read Martin’s book. From the description, it sounds as though it may well take a similar cultural approach to the analysis of green on blue killing that lead to the retroactive classification of “A Crisis of Trust and Cultural Incompatibility” (pdf).
Is there any higher heroism than disrupting one’s own career in the spreading of truth?
“Is there any higher heroism than disrupting one’s own career in the spreading of truth?”
no there is not.
cap’t martin’s book sounds as if it gets to the heart of repeated “big military” failures – cultural insensitivity and ignorance .
And a big helping of hubris.
Uh… yeah. I can think of quite a number of examples off the top of my head.
so how about giving us a few examples, smart guy –
that’ll give us a more precise sense of your values.
Here are a few that come to me immediately:
Throwing oneself on a grenade to save other people’s lives. See any of the many, many Medal of Honor recipients in all our many, many wars.
How about running into a burning building to save someone’s life, when they’re not a member of your family?
How about whistleblowing, when the consequence isn’t merely a sidetracked career but the likelihood of prosecution, not to mention persecution, by one’s own country?
Those are just three that immediately come to mind. All more heroic than “disrupting one’s own career.”
but there was that part about “truth”, remember?
“Is there any higher heroism than disrupting one’s own career in the spreading of truth?”
that didn’t resonate with your values system apparently.
No, I just happen to think all the things I just mentioned are more heroic than “disrupting one’s own career” for virtually any purpose, with, perhaps, the exception of doing so to save someone’s life in a direct and immediate way (although how that would disrupt one’s career, I can’t imagine). I admire Dr. Martin for standing on principle and resigning in order to say what he believes needs to be said. Integrity is rare enough in public life, after all. But I also find the Jim’s exaggeration in the last line of this post grotesque, too, because, yes, there are plenty of things much more “heroic.”
When you quit your job because you feel that the project you’ve been working on for years is more important, which your bosses knew your were working on and now they require that you give it up, then maybe you’ll be qualified to say that.
Until then, I think Jim’s opinion outweighs yours.
Have a nice week!
i see you still weren’t able to work “truth” into your #9 response. have a block with that concept?
as for your troubles imaging “with, perhaps, the exception of doing so to save someone’s life in a direct and immediate way (although how that would disrupt one’s career, I can’t imagine). ..”
how about if one were killed or became paraplegic?
does this help?
(1) You seem to think I have some issue with the “truth” aspect of Jim’s claim. You fail to notice that one of my three examples of something more heroic was whistleblowing. What’s whistleblowing? Exposing to the general public a truth that has been covered up or otherwise hidden or obscured from them. Note that whistleblowing is more heroic, in my view, because the consequences for the whistleblower are much harsher than simply changing jobs.
.
(2) Putting one’s personal health or safety at risk, yes, is heroic, but that doesn’t match what Jim was talking about. That matches precisely my examples of things more heroic. Notice, then, that there are at least two elements in our evaluation of someone’s heroism: (a) their motive and (b) the potential for harm (ranging from mere inconvenience up to death) to the person whose acts we’re evaluating. Someone who risks becoming a paraplegic to save someone else’s life isn’t merely risking “disrupting their career.” Dr. Martin didn’t risk becoming a paraplegic by resigning from the military in order to publish his book. So you yourself have come up with an example of something more heroic than what this guy did.
.
I repeat: none of this is to diminish the real courage it likely took for him to give up his chosen career in order to publish something he believes is urgently necessary to publish. My issue is not with Dr. Martin. It’s with Jim. (And, honestly, it’s not really much of an “issue” at all. I’m just calling shenanigans on that one instance of exaggeration.)
Go for it.
Helmand province, the home of the Taliban, has been the center of gravity of the US/UK failure in Afghanistan,
—–
Britain had 137 bases in the area at the height of the war. Former Lib Dem leader and ex-Royal Marine Lord Ashdown has described the conflict, which has cost tens of billions of pounds to fight, as a “textbook” example of how to lose a war, and said Britain would leave with “our tail between our legs.”
—-
Helmand was ground zero for the failed US surge. At its peak there were about 20,000 Marines in Regional Command Southwest, which includes the province.
—–
A total of 290 coalition forces died in Helmand during the first summer when all surge forces were in place.
——
The 24,000 Afghan National Army (ANA) troops stationed in Helmand now lead the vast majority of combat operations — about 80 percent. In the coming months, they will take full control of security in the province, with coalition forces stepping back into an advisory role.
——
Here’s General Malouk, 215th ANA Corps Commander (Helmand) being honest when he said “This (war) is something that’s been imposed by other people from beyond this country.” —
Maj. Gen. Sayed Malouk emphasized that the public and the ANA have a common goal—peace. He added the ANA soldiers and Afghan civilian are exposed daily to the danger of war.“They’re tired of war,” said Malouk. “They’re frustrated, they no longer want to be in this war. This (war) is something that’s been imposed by other people from beyond this country; and the Afghan (insurgents) who have been fighting against the ANSF, they themselves have been victims of this war. They have been encouraged by those others.” Brigadier Gen. Ghulam Farooq, deputy commander, 215th Corps: “We’ve had continuous war in this country, we’re tired of war and we wish for peace.” — Jun 3, 2012
http://www.dvidshub.net/news/printable/89388
———
It’s long past time to get out of Afghanistan.
Memories of another Brit writer who tried to understand Afghanistan–
— Winston Churchill, soldier-journalist, 1897, aged 23
thanks. what fine writing.
your comment reminded me of a couple of days long ago spent wandering around and thru “the red fort” in agra, a mogul (muslim rulers of india) palace. my wife and i walked about freely about the entire palace by ourselves with no noticeable crowding at any time.
this memory prompted me to review my history and by happenstance i rediscovered the roots of an ancient enmity here:
http://indianrealist.com/2013/10/24/the-moslem-conquest-of-india/
this article includes this cite from will and ariel durant:
“…Seeing the canonization that success had brought to this magnificent thief, other Moslem rulers profited by his example, though none succeeded in bettering his instruction. In 1186 the Ghuri, a Turkish tribe of Afghanistan, invaded India, captured the city of Delhi, destroyed its temples, confiscated its wealth, and settled down in its palaces to establish the Sultanate of Delhi – an alien despotism fastened upon northern India for three centuries, and checked only by assassination and revolt…”
these civilizations, muslim and hindu, have interacted for over a thousand years. they have interacted with europeans for a longer time than the u.s. has been a nation.
“..Note that whistleblowing is more heroic, in my view, because the consequences for the whistleblower are much harsher than simply changing jobs…”
you do understand, don’t you, that cap’t martin is a whistleblower.
you do understand, don’t you, that captain martin did not “just change jobs”.
“.. Dr. Martin didn’t risk becoming a paraplegic by resigning from the military in order to publish his book. So you yourself have come up with an example of something more heroic than what this guy did…”
good grief, what muddle-headed thinking.
Dr. Martin’s own claim: “But he denied the book contained any intelligence material that was not in the public domain.” The British military themselves confirmed that. Here’s dictionary.com’s definition of a whistleblower: “a person who informs on another or makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing.” That isn’t what’s happening here. He’s not bringing anything to light that isn’t already there for people to see. What he apparently does is analyze what’s already there for all to see through the lens of his experiences and expertise. He’s not a whistleblower. Analysis =/= whistleblowing.
.
Ironic, then, that you accuse me of “muddle-headed thinking,” when it is, in fact, you who can’t seem to distinguish things that are, on their face, distinguishable.
you’ve really tied yourself in knots :)
This is the only reaction I have left for you. :P
a cleverly adolescent response.
It’s a simple situation: Jim asked a question (“Is there any higher heroism…”) and Anonsters answered it, quite adequately (disregarding the “Jim’s grotesque exaggeration” part) .
no, he did not “answer” it “quite adequately”, even if you take “adequate” to be equal to “literal”.
further, his succeeding comments were jumbles of disconnect. here’s one example:
“.. Here’s dictionary.com’s definition of a whistleblower: “a person who informs on another or makes public disclosure of corruption or wrongdoing.” That isn’t what’s happening here. He’s not bringing anything to light that isn’t already there for people to see. What he apparently does is analyze what’s already there for all to see through the lens of his experiences and expertise. He’s not a whistleblower. Analysis =/= whistleblowing.
this part, for example,
“..He’s not bringing anything to light that isn’t already there for people to see. What he apparently does is analyze what’s already there for all to see …”
is a conveniently straitened definition of whistleblowing and a foray into sophistry.
So by your lights, legal scholars who analyze the NSA’s programs disclosed by Snowden, and who conclude that those programs are illegal (unconstitutional, not authorized by FISA, both, or something else that makes them illegal), are whistleblowers. Or the journalists who use the documents Snowden gave them to write stories about the programs detailed in the documents are whistleblowers. That’s a heap of nonsense. Only Snowden is the whistleblower. Everyone else is doing something else. Analysis of what he revealed. Further invetigation of what he revealed. In your fantasyland, you may want to expand the notion of whistleblower to anyone who ever criticizes the government for anything, but that’s not the world we live in, and here in reality, that’s not the definition of a whistleblower.
such cleverness.
you create a straw man and then knock it over.
I don’t want to jump into the pissing match about the heroism line, but there are a couple of points that I would make.
First, yes, I did exaggerate. I tend to do that a lot in the closing thought of a post. The idea is to take one part of the post and extend it.
But with that said, a point that hasn’t been mentioned with regard to the example of something like throwing oneself on a grenade is that we need to consider just how many lives could be saved by taking heed of Martin’s conclusions about the folly of our approach in Helmand. I would suggest that could be a lot more lives than those of an immediate squad (and, gosh, could even prevent deaths of the “enemy” side, too). So if we are counting lives saved as a measure of heroism, Martin could get pretty far up the latter if only the military and politicians would listen to him.
Next, when discussing Martin and Daniel Davis, I intentionally use the term “truth-teller” to distinguish them from more straightforward whistleblowers. Yes, nothing they are publishing fits as standard criminal activity that has been covered up. They are providing insider analysis using the same information as the rest of the military, but are coming to very different conclusions while providing ample documentation and support for those conclusions. Both have been completely ostracized by the military for their explanations of what is really going on. Both had to know, going into the process, that precisely this response would occur and that any plans for traditional military careers would come to an end when they put this information out in public. So yeah, I still see heroes there, and they rank pretty damn high, even if they are different from the standard definition.
I’m much more ambivalent about this than you, I guess. I don’t know exactly what conclusions he draws, but based on the blurbs given above, it sounds like he’s saying “we need to better understand the people who live there, in their own terms, not in the terms we create for them.” Which I’m all for. It’s insane that that’s not the first and fundamental approach. But it’s a major leap from that to speculation (and speculation it is; if I were being less generous, I’d say it’s wild-ass speculation) about whether, and if so how many, lives could be saved if only we did X, Y, Z.