Wyatt,Originally Posted by Wyatt
In many ways the leading voices of Strategic Landpower and to some extent SOF as a whole are viewing the future as a reflection of the past decade, specifically our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. FID has a broad yet specific definition, and generally you're correct it means we're assisting a supported nation develop the capacity to deal with internal threats ranging from terrorism, insurgencies, subversion to criminal activity. It really isn't prevention since the problem exists, but more of effort to manage the problem so it doesn't metastasize, which some will argue is an effort to prevent a larger problem. It is either rehab or prehab, and generally our so-called preventive efforts are very much rehab in response to a specific threat, so while our words imply we're trying to get to the left of bang, too many, SOF included, can't conceive of operations that are not "threat focused" but rather focused on preventing (prehab) conflict by conducting engagements to encourage peace, reduce tensions, and deter potential adversaries by shaping the environment. This includes attempting to prevent the emergence of threats from internal instability, transnational threats, and mitigating tensions between states that could if unaddressed escalate into war. It involves much, much more than FID. In fact, FID may not even be required.
Is FID oppressive? It can be has demonstrated throughout history, especially during the Cold War, but it doesn't have to be. We in the West tend to embrace the nave view that if there are security problems the government has failed because it overly oppressive. In some cases that is true, but in others, the insurgents/criminals etc. are far from liberators, and just as often as not do not represent the majority of the population, so in my opinion the answer is the one everyone hates: it depends.
Bookmarks