USASOC has been a historically—see what I did there?—bright spot in the Army for this sort of thing. Their History Office is hands down the most robust and they’re about the only command I know that is consistent in collecting “on the ground.” And their 2-3 staff historians at USASOC are forward leaning with their stellarly choreographed website and captivating articles.
Unquestionably. But it serves as a vital point of departure for the intellectual review, editing and other rote things that gets a publication like SPECIAL WARFARE rolling. They had good people in place who knew what was up.
The other branches will have to start from scratch. The branch historians (from my experience) aren’t doing a whole lot of engagement or writing within their branches at-large.
USASOC has been a historically—see what I did there?—bright spot in the Army for this sort of thing. Their History Office is hands down the most robust and they’re about the only command I know that is consistent in collecting “on the ground.” And their 2-3 staff historians at USASOC are forward leaning with their stellarly choreographed website and captivating articles.
BZ, to USASOC!
Veritas crushes it and I enjoy seeing their work highlighted in Special Warfare, but branch magazines should be much more than official history!
Unquestionably. But it serves as a vital point of departure for the intellectual review, editing and other rote things that gets a publication like SPECIAL WARFARE rolling. They had good people in place who knew what was up.
The other branches will have to start from scratch. The branch historians (from my experience) aren’t doing a whole lot of engagement or writing within their branches at-large.