# The RAND Organization



## AWP (Mar 24, 2011)

I've pimped them before I think, but for you newer guys, I'd encourage you to check them out. Their online and free library is amazing. Even if you don't agree with their conclusions, the amount of information available to you is staggering and worth a look or bookmark.

The search page:
http://www.rand.org/publications/pubs_search.html

The results for "special operations", 428 hits:
http://search.rand.org/search?input...ect&v:project=rand&query="special+operations"


----------



## AWP (Mar 24, 2011)

Other sources of info (maybe I should make this one post):

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Pages/default.aspx

US Army's Parameters Magazine:
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 24, 2011)

I'd definitely say that I often times do not agree with there conclusions based on the method that they come about them.  Plenty of times they have steered decision makers the wrong way in situations of threat finance and counter insurgency.

I'd read what they have to say, but I personally would never source from them.


----------



## QC (Mar 24, 2011)

Used it in the past and it's interesting. Sometimes obscure but there are topics related to here. But the annual hoe handle production report and it's implications on Sub Saharan Africa is a bit of a waste of effort.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 24, 2011)

I like them as one piece of a picture. They do produce some interesting stuff but you have to take them like any think tank- with a big pinch of salt.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 25, 2011)

It's frustrating when you have some officer tell you "Well RAND says this..." and you have to explain to them that their methods of coming to conclusions is often times wholly based on statistics and not proper analysis.  Lack of message traffic does not equal lack of activity in my opinion.


----------



## AWP (Apr 16, 2011)

Another good link, The Cold War International History Project:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=topics.home&topic_id=1409


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 16, 2011)

I use RAND often they're frequently cited in my classes and in reports I read.  I've never had any problem with what they've written.


----------



## AWP (May 20, 2011)

US Army Center of Military History. I just started The US Army and Irregular Warfare, 1775-2007.

http://www.history.army.mil/

Their Related Links tab has Navy, Air Force, Marines, NG, Reserve, etc. history as well.

http://www.history.army.mil/websites.html


----------



## RetPara (May 24, 2011)

The history.army.mil/websites list has some link that no longer work.  You may need to search for the newest links.

I would also recommend Military Review ( http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/index.asp ) even though in the past they did have at least one questionable person doing book reviews for them......


----------

