To Tired To Do Those Quote Thingys So......
I will just do this.
Bill,
1-Killing Pablo was not about the war on drugs per say other than he happened to be a drug dealer. It quickly moved to a destroy him and his organization problem which is why the DEA was able to get Intelligence and the Military involved. Also why they didn't really care about the cocaine increase since that was not the primary mission.
2-Hiroshima and Nagasaki were definitely targeted there is a McNamara documentary done recently that goes into some detail about that. I was surprised that he admitted he was more concerned about efficiency and it was Curtis LeMay who was more concerned about being effective.
3-I read Grants piece and liked it very much. Colonel Warden would have given Grant a gold star for finally what he has been saying for the last 10 years. You should read "The Way of The Knife" the story about the CIA involvement from the beginning to the end. On one page they make the comment that the meaning of "Targeting" was being transformed from a person, group or government that you want to collect Intel on or one you want to influence at a high (Strategic) level to list of people you want to kill.
I am trying to get permission to post a review Colonel Warden did in afterward to the book he wrote. It is a recap of the whole war situation since it began and how we have failed to essentially understand Strategy and the difference between Strategic measures vs. Tactical measures. link to the book I mentioned http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Knife-.../dp/1594204802
Curmudgy Don't Leave Town Yet
"So I ask the question, if the strategic objective is a free, stable, democratic state, what other strategy do we have other than the population-centric government building that is found in COIN?"
I'll try to better explain why I am big on Targeting at the Strategic level.
(The part in Highlights)
First that is not a Strategic Objective it is a Political Objective. The Military job is to find the correct Targets that will create a linked Effect so the Political Objective can be achieved.
*So lets look at free. That implies there is some force or forces that is causing the Target country to not to be free.
*Second stable. That implies that there is some force or forces that are causing instability.
*Third there is either some corrupt process or a lack of some democratic process for the Target country.
From there you MUST identify these Targets in order to complete your mission. So based upon this COIN has little or nothing to do with accomplishing the original Iraq mission. But Strategic level Targeting does and we did not do that very well at all. So we have fallen into the COIN psychosis-analysis conundrum.