I go along with Bob's World.
My experience mirrors his on the IC fascination with PROVEN threats -- and noting that they are reluctant to discuss possible threats. As one guy I knew once said, "They want to write history..." :rolleyes:
I've gotten about an equal mix of bad and good threat info over the years and only from the rare and quite exceptional (in the good sense of the word) J/G/S2 / MI Det or unit any useful cultural or populace info.
Intel Trooper: I believe they are commonly referred to as "Half Fast Spooklets"
You're also correct in that the 'system' wants to be threat centric. I believe because that way it's hard to say that the system erred. Thank you for being one of the good guys who pushed that envelope... :cool:
Surferbeetle's right -- we have a major priority problem in funding and degree of support from on high. :mad:
A very real and hearty and vigorous debate
From Abu M:
Quote:
Some folks in the public affairs shop at the Pentagon were predictably upset that they were not in the loop regarding the report's release, but this is Pentagon spokesperson Geoff Morrell speaking today on behalf of his civilian boss, the Secretary of Defense:
[The report] is exactly the type of candid, critical self-assessment that the secretary believes is a sign of a strong and healthy organization. This kind of honest appraisal enriches what has been a very real and hearty and vigorous debate that, frankly, has been taking place within this building, within this department and within this government for years now.
Link:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...at-crisis.html
Well that's my earlier puzzlement answered why in the public domain.
Adding Hot Sauce to the Mix
Latest quotes from Ambassador Holbrooke sounds like Bob wrote. Who is the "threat?"
http://www.eurasianet.org/department...av010710.shtml
Enticing non-ideological militants to quit the fight could help US forces turn the tide of the Afghan insurgency against the Taliban.
Quote:
They fight for various reasons; they are misled about our presence there. They have a sense of injustice or personal grievances. Or they fight because it’s part of the Afghan tradition that you fight outsiders and they have the [International Security Assistance Force]/NATO/U.S. presence conflated with earlier historical events, some of which are not too far in the past,
Holbrooke said, referring to non-ideological combatants.
The United States did not focus on winning over non-ideological militants to the government’s side during the first year of Holbrooke’s tenure largely because last year’s presidential election diverted his team’s attention. It will become a priority in 2010, however.
Quote:
"It’s absolutely imperative that we deal with this issue. If we don’t deal with it, success will elude us.
Holbrooke said.
I thought that had a nice ring to it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve the Planner
Bob:
"all about "the threat," but very little about what really threatened them... "
Wow. I'm just going to let that great phrase percolate for a while.
Like one of those small books that takes years to understand.
Steve
The point is that we are very focused on what I would call symptoms of a much larger problem. We have deemed these symptoms as "the threat", and the cure for the symptoms, to my way of thinking, actually makes the underlying root cause conditions worse. Temporary relief that lulls you into a false sense of security to continue to ignore that growing, malignant cancer.
"What really threatens" is the underlying root cause, but so long as we drill and drill and engage and engage on the symptoms, we never get to it. The role of the military is in large part to manage these symptoms; it only becomes a dangerous situation when one comes to see the symptoms as the actual problem.
Militaries cannot truly resolve an insurgency. I stand on that. Not unless you are willing to be absolutely ruthless and are cool with having a fearful, spiritless populace peacefully submitting to your benevolent rule. Until the Political / Policy types come to fully accept and address that these violent reactions among the people are a result of THEIR failures; and not some evil opponents SUCCESSES; you can't get in front of the problem.
As an aside, I had an interesting discussion with the head state department guy here in Kandahar earlier this week. Trying to make the case that for the Surge to truly succeed we need to take full advantage of this wonderful gift of popularly accepted democracy that exists uniquely here; and demand that Karzai call for a true Loya Jirga. It should be the condition precedent to any surge of US military power. It is beyond Karzai's manipulation, it is not constrained by the Constitution, and it cannot be controlled by Western Powers. It could well put guys like Omar or Haqqani (or people connected to them) into the government. "That would be beyond the pale!" he exclaimed. When I told him "Last time I checked, this isn't the United States of America, and it really isn't our call as to who the people choose to lead them." He gave me a look of shock and disgust, and spun on his heels and stomped off.
Sometimes you have to tell people what they don't want to hear.
McCreary's Blast (from Ricks/FP)
Tom called out Mr. McCreary's blast on Nightwatch>
Seems to hit everything...
http://nightwatch.afcea.org/NightWatch_20100106.htm