Talking past each other?
Subtitle: how views of U.S. power vary between U.S. and international military personnel
By: Richard H.M. Outzen
Contributors: Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute
Series: Letort paper; Letort papers
Publisher: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College
Published: 2013
Place of publication: Carlisle, PA
Language: eng
Number of pages: 56
ISBN-13: 9781584875598
Subjects: Anti-Americanism; Soldiers; Statistics; Attitudes; Armed Forces; Foreign service; Military policy; Public opinion; Foreign relations; Military relations; Politics and government
Other titles: How views of US power vary between US and international military personnel; How views of United States power vary between United States and international military personnel
Description: The 21st century U.S. military seldom operates alone. Except for initial entry and organizational training, it works almost always with and through foreign partners. Yet over the past decade, anecdotal evidence suggests that U.S. military organizations and personnel have trouble understanding, influencing, and cooperating with international partners. This evidence includes high-profile incidents from Iraq and Afghanistan: civilian deaths, Koran burnings, blue-on-blue or green-on-blue lethal attacks. It also includes more numerous, lower profile bits of friction that follow U.S. service members around the globe in the form of protests, lawsuits, criminal cases, and difficult military-to-military relations from Iraq and Afghanistan to Turkey and Pakistan. In some instances, the U.S. military may be entirely without fault, suffering friction driven by problematic local attitudes or political dynamics. On the other hand, it is possible that certain characteristics of thought or behavior within the U.S. military culture increase the likelihood of severe friction. Against this backdrop, the gap between the U.S. military's self-image and its image in the eyes of an international military audience is examined. When considering U.S. power, do response patterns indicate great difference between how U.S. military officers view themselves, and how they are viewed by their international peers? If so, is there anything that the United States can do about it, or does a fundamental and pathological anti-Americanism predetermine outcomes? Based on a survey administered at the National Defense University, this study offers observations and recommendations about the increasingly central question of how U.S. forces can form better and stronger ties with partners.
Notes: "February 2013."

Format not distributed to depository libraries.

Includes bibliographical references (pages 47-48).

Also available online in PDF format from Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) web site.
Table of contents: title: Background theory : the academic study of anti-Americanism. Primary explanations for a growing phenomenon; title: Transitory explanation; title: Reflexive or "pathological" explanations; title: Other survey data relevant to "anti-Americanism"; title: Interpreting results of the survey. Areas of convergence and divergence; title: Focus group review of preliminary observations; title: International officer opinion in light of Pew and Gallup polling data; title: Implications and conclusions. Implications for anti-Americanism theory; title: Implications for U.S. policy and operations; title: Recommended mitigation measures.