Quote:
Unless there is a new definition of suborn I don't know, this will turn into a circular logic thread.
I don't think there is any of that here. In the letter of the definition, I disagree with the word's usage here.
Typo on my part-- I mean "subordinated."
Quote:
In the information war we stand to gain a lot by breaking the stereotype that the Soldier, Marine, Airman, and Sailor are only there to kill. Counter the insurgency IO with better IO. If I'm the one operating in a particular AO, I'm not going to let some organization that has no stake in success, no reward for being there, who is not accountable to me, and who can leave whenever they choose shape the battlefield for me. In short, I'm not letting the civilians do my job because in the 5 years we've been in Iraq (IMHO and the opinion of the shieks, religious leaders, politicians, and tribal leader's I've worked with), the NGOs have a worse reputation for failing to deliver than the coalition forces. It's easy (and routine) for an NGO to go into a bilateral engagement, promise the world, and never come back. Then I have to deal with it. Now what have we lost.
That's a very good observation. In the ideal world, yes, civilian-led ops are probably the best way to go, but given what we have now in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military is being forced to improvise. That leads to a much larger debate over the ability (and even authority) of the military to perform roles and responsibilities in conflict zones that it was not designed to do.