Doctrine and pseudo intellectualism via overly simplified quotes which include all: "all politics are local, " "the populace is the center of gravity, " "improve the economy they'll quit fighting," "hearts and minds," and many more. While well intentioned, these quotes become an excuse to avoid thinking and seeking a true understanding of the situation, which has resulted in many missteps over the past decade.
Excellent observations, and it seems most of our Western leaders are incapable of breaking the chains that tie them to their Western education indoctrination, which includes our very narrow perspective on the nature and character of war. They all too often apply artificial political rationale based on "their" views of legitimacy that has nothing to do with the true nature of a particular conflict. We wasted billions trying to resolve ethnic struggles with economic development in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Diagnosed the problem incorrectly, applied the wrong solution (assuming their is one), and walked away 10 plus years laters with so called lessons from a decade of conflict that simply promote the same approach in the future. I don't see a fix in the near term unless we adjust our education system that encourages critical thinking, and furthermore encourage intellectual debate in the ranks instead encouraging staying on message.I have three general issues with the eternal linking of these three elements with the definition of War. First, it does not allow for the “primordial violence, hatred and enmity” to stand alone. There can be no violence without a connection to a political end. This seems very limiting to me. Second and closely tied to the first, it requires an affirmative political entity (or at a minimum and ideology). A religious or criminal motivation for organized violence is incomplete. Somewhere in the background there must be a political leader pulling the strings. Third, the idea of a “rational political policy” imputes the idea that the both parties to the conflict must be proceeding as rational actors advancing a specific policy. Once we define war as an instrument of policy we immediately attempt to see that policy in terms of our Western frame of reference. The natural outcome of this thinking is that we end up looking for the opposing force’s rational political purpose as well as the rational political actor to attack and/or negotiate with.
Bookmarks