"COIN" is number 2 on my hit list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Well then why are you using violence to set forth a policy? Are you killing people to make them like you?
If you want to drop some silly words, try getting rid of "COIN." - Thanks to CNAS and the like, it is now utterly meaningless and a block to clear and effective thinking.
....and winning a war requires you destroy the enemy. It works. It works better than anything else and it is proven to work.
CNAS would be number 3...but they are protected by the Constitution so I leave them on.:D
You all have been making me think about why I think this today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Totally agree with you on this -- as always, my disagreement is limited to two factors:
- I believe you significantly misunderestimate the American domestic political impact on your proposed courses of action.
- Like Dayuhan and Tukhachevskii among others, I believe you significantly over estimate the global impact of America the ugly and evil while discounting the impact of America the very excessively rich.
I also believe that the latter error leads in a sense to the first error... ;)
Good ideas can be obscured by the adverse impact of arguable propositions on one's audience. :wry:
Which, of course, is why I take tactical pauses to post. So here goes:
As I have stated fairly often, when it comes to insurgency it's all about the perception of the insurgent populace. Doesn't have to be real, doesn't have to be fact, and it sure as hell does not have to be a perspective that the target of that insurgency agrees with. In fact, more often than not the counterinsurgent finds the insurgent positoin to be rediculous all the way to the Guillitine.
So, the question is not if WE think America is to blame for conditions of poor governance in so many Muslim dominated contries that we have relations with. The quesiton is not if those governments think they have conditions of poor governance in those countries. The question is not even if there actually are conditions of poor governance in those countries.
The one material question is, the one material perspective is, do the insurgent and subversive elements of those populaces believe it to be true.
Marie Antionette did not understand the importance of this point.
King George did not understand the importance of this point.
WE MUST understand the importance of this point. To fail to do so is to risk following in some very tragic shoes indeed.
There is nothing new under the sun...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
this one:
BTW: the Eminent Jurists Panel may already have beat you to this, but I'm always open to new "material" points of view.
Suggestion: start it as a new thread ?
Regards
Mike
Give me a day or two and I'll put something up.
Heh. Again I agree -- but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
The one material question is, the one material perspective is, do the insurgent and subversive elements of those populaces believe it to be true.
I agree but I do not believe that all insurgents believe what they say they believe for public consumption and I would suggest you consider the fact most talk one thing when out of power and do quite another when they are able to gather power. That includes such icons as one time insurgents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson...
It's mostly about power, the out of office malfeasants want to replace the in-office malfeasants. I've played games with far too many groups of nominal insurgents around the world that lie about all that quite well...
I also find it fascinating that someone with time in the ME takes anything said there by anyone at face value.
Quote:
WE MUST understand the importance of this point. To fail to do so is to risk following in some very tragic shoes indeed.
Can't speak for Marie or George -- though I think the latter got overcome more by arrogance than by ignorance (message in that?) -- but unlike you, I really think most in policy positions are quite well aware of what you say. I also think many in such positions have a more pragmatic take on what nominal insurgents might believe as opposed to what they profess to believe.
Your problem will be convincing those NOT in policy positions, notably about a third of the US population and a like number of both Congroids and Senatorial Grandstanders of the validity of your approach. They will be your big obstacle. My perception is that you will also have some trouble with another third of the population and said Congress critters who will want to see some validation of your approach before they will commit. The good news is that about a third of all communities will agree with you. :D
However, that's a minority and as the man said, "Aye, there's the rub..."
Addendum:
Another idealist has to bite that same bullet:
"Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant, you know, academically approved approach to health care. And didn’t have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it. And just go ahead and have that passed. But that’s not how it works in our democracy. (LINK)."
Choke, Heimlich, Choke Some More
Dayahan:
Your description is bulemic. But I don't know that it is wrong.
"We bit off more than we could chew, and now we're looking at the possibility of choking on it. To extricate we will probably have to abandon the original goal and perform something akin to a Heimlich maneuver on ourselves - ain't gonna be pretty but it's better than choking.
For the same reason, I don't think it's practical for us to try and re-form our relations with the Muslim world by challenging the vast range of autocratic governments that exist in that world and trying to make them accountable to their populaces. I don't think the populaces in question want our intervention, I don't think we have the capacity to accomplish that task, and I think that if we try to do it we're likely to bite off more than we can chew all over again, and ending up choking ourselves some more."
I was reading some of the alternate press coverage on the gamesmanship between DoD and DoS for funding and responsibility, and playing out in congress now.
Word is that DoD is trying very hard to distance itself for governance responsibility and to pin the tale on State, despite the lack of resources for it to perform (Mullen comments).
The same kinds of games are also going on in the aid world over control of programs and funding. All playing out in a Congress embattled with other issues, and no public interest in these endeavors.
A recent report indicated a 2-4% public interest in Afghanistan, and huge focus on the budget and economy.
This is not a good time to be mission-creeping into ill-defined hearts, minds and Heimlich manuevers in far away places.
If the Afghan mission is retaliatory and suppressive, there is support.
As it continues to be limitlessly defined in creating new worlds in far off places, the elections-clock will bring a lot to an end quicker than many folks imagine.
I'm afraid these domestic realities are moving rapidly forward.
UK drug addict tells of Taliban recruitment
A short BBC News item:
Quote:
how a Muslim man went from being a drug addict in the UK to a militant fighting for the Taliban.
Link:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8722955.stm
UK debates what to do next?
Here in the UK the official state campaign against violent extremism (known as Preventing Violent Extremism PVE), known as 'Prevent' (a strand of the UK's CT strategy Operation Contest), is under review by the coalition governemnt, partly as they have financial spending to cut and a different outlook on the way ahead.
Not unexpectedly there is a lobbying campaign in private and public over the future of PVE. Some insight into what may happen is available from recently published documents and reports:
1) Quilliam Foundation's private submission that has been "leaked" to: http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834977/quilliamjune2010 (60 pgs long and I am looking to see if there is an alternative to scribd).)
2) Demos (left of centre think tank) published 'From Suspects to Citizens': http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/...ectstocitizens
3) A commentary by Rachel Briggs, ex-Demos and now at RUSI: http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment...4C331519B8C90/
4) Andrew Gilligan, in The Daily Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalis...ll-report.html which refers to the debate over confronting violent extremism or extremism
Nothing wrong with an ounce of prevention, so long as it is properly directed
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davidbfpo
Here in the UK the official state campaign against violent extremism (known as Preventing Violent Extremism PVE), known as 'Prevent' (a strand of the UK's CT strategy Operation Contest), is under review by the coalition governemnt, partly as they have financial spending to cut and a different outlook on the way ahead.
Not unexpectedly there is a lobbying campaign in private and public over the future of PVE. Some insight into what may happen is available from recently published documents and reports:
1) Quilliam Foundation's private submission that has been "leaked" to:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834977/quilliamjune2010 (60 pgs long and I am looking to see if there is an alternative to scribd).)
2) Demos (left of centre think tank) published 'From Suspects to Citizens':
http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/...ectstocitizens
3) A commentary by Rachel Briggs, ex-Demos and now at RUSI:
http://www.rusi.org/analysis/comment...4C331519B8C90/
4) Andrew Gilligan, in The Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalis...ll-report.html which refers to the debate over confronting violent extremism or extremism
The entire concept of "radicalization" is premised in the flawed construct that good citizens go bad due solely to outside influence. Prevention seems to have been focused at these bad outside influences.
So, a man who largely ignores his wife, fails to show her proper respect, or prioritizes her low in his life relative to other interests may well take the position that she was "radicalized" when she becomes infatuated with the attentions lauded upon her by someone who is also lending a sympathetic ear to her plight. But is it really the "fault" of the guy who lures her away, or is it the fault of the man who foolishly created the condtitions that contributed to the new guy's success?
"Prevent" is fine, but the majority of it must be turned internally under the harsh light of frank self-assessment. What can we change about our own behavior to prevent radicalization? Weight the effort there. Only minor and reasonable measures will then be needed for dealing with the efforts of others.