Cultural property encompasses both tangible artifacts and intangible heritage that shapes societies. Historian Matthias Rogg is back in the studio, this time with Laurie Rush, an archaeologist and anthropologist working as a Department of the Army civilian at Fort Drum, NY. Laurie, who has extensive experience supporting the Army in cultural property protection missions, highlights the importance of preserving cultural heritage during conflicts. Their conversation turns to the need for increased awareness and training within the military on identifying and protecting cultural property. The discussion underscores the strategic significance of cultural property protection in warfare and its impact on post-war reconstruction efforts. This is the second in a two-part series exploring these complex issues.
For more information regarding cultural property and it’s protection please consider these additional resources:
The Monuments Men (2014) based on the bestseller by Robert M. Edsel The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History
Charlie English’s bestseller The Book Smugglers of Timbuktu (2018) about the attempt to save Mali’s world-famous library.
Frederik Rosén, NATO and Cultural Property. A Hybrid Threat Perspective, PRISM Vol. 10, No. 3 (2023)
Civil-Military Cooperation Centre of Excellence, Factsheet: Cultural Property Protection (CCP). Concepts, Interoperability and Capability Branch (2020)
Everything I know about the importance of cultural property to mission failure and success, I’ve learned from a 10th Mountain Division soldier. Because they’re deployed so much, they have encountered cultural property almost on a daily basis overseas, and they’ve also learned good lessons and painful lessons from those encounters.
Podcast: Download
Laurie Rush, PhD, is an Army Archaeologist serving as a cultural resources manager in support of the 10th Mountain Division and Fort Drum. Her research focuses on Indigenous People of the Great Lakes and how effective cultural property protection can contribute to mission success.
Matthias Rogg is a colonel in the German Armed Forces, who currently teaches in the Department of Military Strategy, Planning and Operations (DMSPO) at the U.S. Army War College. He received a PhD in Early Modern History from the University of Freiburg i.Br., a Habilitation in Newer and Contemporary History from the University of Potsdam and has taught since 2013 as Professor for History at the German Armed Forces University in Hamburg. Among assignments in the Armored Forces, the Ministry of Defence (Policy and Planning Staff) and the Military History Research Institute, he was Founding Director of the Military History of the German Armed Forces (Dresden) and Founding Director and Co-chair of the German Institute for Defence of Strategic Studies, the Think Tank of the Bundeswehr (Hamburg). His newest book The Army of the Unity? German Armed Forces between Peaceful Revolution and German Unification is in preparation for printing and will be published in 2025. He is a former International Fellow and graduate of the AY24 Resident Course at the U.S. Army War College.
The views expressed in this presentation are those of the speakers and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, U.S. Army, or Department of Defense.
Photo Description: Raqqa, Syria, Qasr al-Banat from east
Photo Credit: Bertramz via Wikimedia Commons
Question:
Should not the definition of “cultural property” — and of “sacred sites” — and the rationale for protecting same (if necessary, with our own blood and treasure); should not this such definition and rationale, logically, be extended to the individual and unique — and the historically-derived — political, economic, social and/or value orientation and institutions of various states and societies?
Note that if such were the case, then our statespersons and soldiers — and specifically our Commander-in-Chiefs, and our Combatant and Division Commanders, would not have to explain — in some seemingly inconsistent, illogical, irrational and/or dishonest manner — why they would:
a. Work hard (and even expend our own blood and treasure) to protect one of these such items (to wit: the cultural property, the monuments, the sacred sites, etc.) of “different” states and societies. But — at the exact same time —
:
b. Work even harder to eliminate and replace the political, economic, social and/or value orientation and institutions, of “different” states and societies, within which these such cultural items may have become manifest.
My question and thought here possibly stated another way:
If the exceptionally well-known political objective of the U.S./the West is to transform our own states and societies — and those of the rest of the world also — this, so that same might be made to better interact with, better provide for and better benefit from such things as democracy, capitalism, markets and trade, then, from that exact such perspective:
a. Why would the political, economic, social and/or value orientation and institutions of “different” states and societies be considered “fair game;” this, while:
b. The cultural property, the monuments, the sacred sites, etc., of such “different” states and societies be considered “off limits?”
(Note: As I have attempted to explain at my third comment at Part I of this series, international law does not seem to make — and/or to support — this such distinction.)
Addendum — to my comment immediately above:
As to my final, “in parenthesis,” item immediately above; as to this such item, should we consider that international law suggests that BOTH (a) the individual and unique cultural property, monuments, sacred sites, etc., of others — AND (b) the individual and unique political, economic, social and/or value orientation and institutions of others — BOTH OF THESE are, in fact, (1) “off-limits” and (2) must be protected rather harmed?
Related question:
When foreign populations — before, during and/or after conflict — are confronted with officers of the U.S./the West (military or civilian), who are (a) in the process of protecting the populations’ time-honored cultural property but at the exact same time are (b) attacking and seeking to replace the populations’ — also possibly time-honored — political, economic, social, value, etc., institutions and norms;
When foreign populations — before, during and/or after conflict — are confronted with this such craziness, what, exactly, are these such foreign populations supposed to think?
a. That the U.S./the West is more interested in peace and reconciliation; this, rather than “transformation?” (And, thus, is more interested in peace and reconciliation; this, rather than conflict, war and/or the continuation of war?) Or:
b. That the U.S./the West is more interested in “transformation;” this, rather than peace and reconciliation?” (And, thus, is more interested in conflict, war and/or the continuation of war; this, rather peace and reconciliation?)
Some concluding thoughts:
At the heart of the problem that I discuss at Part 2 (above) of this series of articles — and that I introduced at Part 1 of this series of articles — this would seem to be tension that exists between:
a. The primary goal of international law, which seems to prioritize post-conflict peace and reconciliation; this, over transformative goals. (In fact, in order to achieve peace and reconciliation as soon as possible after conflict, “transformation” would seem to actually be “outlawed” by international law?) And:
b. The primary goal of the U.S./the West, which seems to prioritize transformation; this, over both (a) peace and reconciliation and (b) international law.
(From this such perspective, to understand why — while international law would dictate the protection of BOTH the individual and unique cultural properly of different states and societies AND the protection of the individual and unique political, economic, social and value orientation and institutions of different states and societies — why the U.S./the West, in sharp contrast, would choose only to honor the protection of cultural property requirement/clause of international law?)