The USA military-led global strategy: a fresh analysis?

Written by Paul Rogers, a UK Professor of Peace Studies, oringinally under the title 'A new military paradigm' and an opening sub-title:

Quote:

---

A near-decade of global war since 9/11 highlights the urgent need for revision of Washington’s military-led global strategy. A fresh analysis offers the ingredients for change.

---

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-ro...itary-paradigm

His argument / analysis revolves around this:

Quote:

---

..as the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approaches - the focus on military solutions to the global conflict is exhausted, and the need for different ways forward is urgent..

---

Used in support is a new book:

Quote:

---

A most significant contribution in this respect is a joint study by the LSE professor Mary Kaldor and the United States army colonel Shannon D Beebe

---

Link to the book 'The Ultimate Weapon is No Weapon: Human Security and the new Rules of War and Peace':http://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/pu...=9781586488239

From the publicity and I did wonder if a certain SWC member had a part:

Quote:

---

When marginalized populations are trapped in poverty and lawlessness and denied political power and justice brutality, and fascism thrive. Human security is a new concept for clarifying what peace requires and the policies and priorities by which to achieve it.

---

Now this is not a new paradigm, SWC have debated these issues before in a number of threads, I can quickly recall that on Genocide, prevention of. We are also very aware that many of our national, state institutions have yet to adapt.

Looks like the author has spent a bit of time in "Bob's World."

Seriously though, obviously I agree with his general premise. What I find sadly interesting is that in the US, while we can generally agree that we employ the military too much to make people comply with our desires of them, our solution has been that we need to employ other aspects of our government more vigorously to make other people comply with our desires of them. So much so, that we will pay our civil servants a 70% bonus and extra paid travel and vacations to entice them to take this on.

The issue is not that we need more civilians to help the military do what it is doing, the issue is that we are doing the wrong things in the wrong manner. The military is out managing the symptoms of the friction of US foreign policy. What we really need from the civilian community is not help putting out the fires and blowing the smoke away, but rather that they change how they do their own jobs so as to produce less friction to begin with. No 70% pay bump required.

Sadly,until we change the way money works nothing will change:(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

The issue is not that we need more civilians to help the military do what it is doing, the issue is that we are doing the wrong things in the wrong manner. The military is out managing the symptoms of the friction of US foreign policy. What we really need from the civilian community is not help putting out the fires and blowing the smoke away, but rather that they change how they do their own jobs so as to produce less friction to begin with. No 70% pay bump required.

---

USG can make the military take action. This is not true of the larger interagency. Until the USG can compel its personnel to participate in CT action as needed and directed, the default will always be to have the military solve the problem.