The Trouble with History in Military Education

September/October 2005 Historically Speaking 11 The Trouble with History in Military Education* Antulio J. Echevarría II The distinguished historian Sir Michael Howard once admitted that the past, which he aptly referred to as an "inexhaustible storehouse of events," could be used to "prove anything or its contrary."1 Howard's admission exposes an underlying problem with history that most historians prefer not to acknowledge. The past has indeed served many masters and conflicting purposes over time; its storehouse of events has been used to validate or discredit practically every major theory, precept, or principle. While historians are aware of this, few of them have taken the pains to examine what it is about history that permits the past to be used in such contradictory ways. The reluctance stems, at least in part, from a fundamental concern that the rigorous scrutiny necessary to arrive at the root of the problem might, at the same time, reveal the limits of history —limits that might in turn undermine the purported value that history brings to education, especially military education. After all, professional military education, more than other forms, strives to impart a certain level of understanding across a broad array of topics in a relatively short period of time. History faces stiff competition for curriculum space from other disciplines—the political and behavioral sciences, for instance—all of which claim (more or less dubiously) to be more relevant to the task of preparing military leaders to address contemporary challenges . While I will focus on the troubles underlying history, it should not be construed as an argument for replacing history with another equally troubled discipline. On the contrary, despite the faults that will be discussed here, history has much to offer—just not in the way traditionally thought. The traditional argument in favor of * This essay is adapted from Parameters (Summer 2005). The original article, "The Trouble with History," can be accessed at www.carlisle.army.mil/ usawc/Parameters/O5summer/echevarr.pdf. including history in military education is that the vicarious experience it offers is the "most effective means of teaching war during peace."2 That argument, however, is untenable . There is no reliable way to determine whether such experience is rooted in a close approximation of the past, or in a historian's own imagination. Military professionals would benefit much more by engaging in a critical study of the past than by absorbing the anecdotal incidents of history. Accordingly, institutions responsible for educating military professionals should include a brief course in historiography designed to Militaryprofessionals would benefit much more by engaging in a critical study ofthepast than by absorbing the anecdotal incidents ofhistory. teach students what history is—a body of knowledge that is incomplete, deeply flawed in places, and essentially and inescapably dynamic. Moreover, emphasizing that students must view the past analytically, rather than vicariously, facilitates the development of their critical thinking skills. History and the Past History, contrary to popular assumption, is not the past. The terms are commonly, but incorrectly, used interchangeably. The past, simply put, is what happened. History, in contrast, is the historian's interpretation of what happened. As Michael Howard stressed, history is merely what "historians write." For Carl Becker history is little more than the collective "memory of things said and done." Thus, just like human memory, history is fallible and prone to selective recall. As such, it is also highly idiosyncratic, and inevitably imperfect. Hence, as E. H. Carr warned, one must "study the historian before studying the facts."* The rub for historians is that the available evidence concerning the past is rarely sufficient , or is too abundant, to permit of only one interpretation. Beyond this, historians face a fundamental problem: they have no objective references for determining (beyond a reasonable doubt) to what extent the histories they write either capture or deviate from the past. Put differently, they have nothing resembling the scientific method to aid them in determining whether what they have written is somewhat right, mostly right, or altogether wrong about the past. Quantitative history , intellectual history, "history from below," and oral history, for example , each employ different methods . Yet none of those procedures can lay claim to the reliability...