SWC strategy: what future improvements are needed?

[SWJED]

Watching and learning here, keep it up. SWJ/SWC will stay, it's what we are about. That said, we can always improve. My thoughts on this issue are contained in a recent interview I did for War on the Rocks - http://warontherocks.com/2014/05/5-q...oin-cocktails/

[Bill Moore]

Watching and learning here, keep it up. SWJ/SWC will stay, it's what we are about. That said, we can always improve. My thoughts on this issue are contained in a recent interview I did for War on the Rocks - http://warontherocks.com/2014/05/5-q...oin-cocktails/

Great interview, but what bothers me and what I think is starting to impact the SWJ site was how the last question was phrased about the debate between COINdinistas and COINtras. It is a shame that if some of us are opposed to our 2006 and 2014 versions COIN doctrine manuals that automatically means we're opposed to studying COIN. We even had one bonehead post that he was surprised that SWJ even allows Bing to post articles on SWJ because he is opposed to our COIN doctrine. Obviously hasn't been around SWJ long.

It is time to move beyond the COINdista and COINtra argument and discuss what small wars we need to engage in to protect our interests, and how we should engage is still open, it is not predetermined by FM 3-24.

To me a COINdista is someone who blindly embraces the current FM, not someone who advocates we need to be prepared to conduct COIN. That is a big difference, not a nuance that seems to be lost in the discussions.

[OUTLAW 09]

Currently the world is seeing and experiencing a mixture of a large number of apparently different/unrelated and yet intertwined/connected issues;

1. the new Russian UW strategy that is tied to political warfare which has opened the discussion on
2. the changing of international existing borders based on ethnicity, language and culture as defined by the Putin Duma speech which affects roughly 250 "hotspots" worldwide with a large number in Africa and Asia and the impact of this new "Putin doctrine" on Europe
3. the new Chinese Three Warfare Stages and the impact of that on the South China Sea and it's rim
4. Cyper attacks, criminal internet activities, and internet industrial espionage by Russia, China, and Iran
5. the Iranian hegemony drive and the rivalry between Iran and the Sunni world
6. the ME unfinished Arab Springs
7. the Syrian civil war with the interaction of Shia/Sunni/US and Russian expansionism
8. the Palestinian/Israeli conflict
9. water was a weapon and point of conflict
10. the expansion of AQ into "failed and or semi failed" states
11. the use of an European Army to address African failed states ie AR
12. current NATO or new NATO or ditch NATO-crate new European Defense Force and create a new European political sphere and decouple for US "lead"
13. the potential collapse of NK and the impact on SK
14. redeveloping Japanese military and it's impact on it's neighbors
15. redeveloping rivalry between the US and Russia
16. globalization and economic competition
17. US redeveloping foreign relations with Philippines and Vietnam
18. transnational criminal organizations ie drugs, human trafficking and money laundering
19. the need of a national level UW and counter UW strategy

The list could go on.

At the core of the above debates should be-- is the current foreign policy as envisioned by this WH ie "soft power" via leadership/dialogue capable of even coming close to resolving any of the about issues.

The concept of "small wars" has actually entered into a totally new sphere and the question is ---is the military and senior leadership even prepared to address this new environment that is so intertwined/complex with a "reduced defense budget and a smaller military" and a population that is tired of war/conflict.

The reason for the expansion of say War on the Rocks is the ease in getting articles published vs the almost doctorial thesis style of articles being published that while nice to have as reference materials it slows down the release process as many who would like to contribute do not have the time to write a "thesis".

Thus shorter, more concise, and thought provoking articles keyed to a specific topic opening a discussion and then letting the discussion flow in a free exchange would allow the audience to be expanded.

Also the idea of COIN has to a degree run it's course while the current foreign policy statements seem to be backing away from boots on the ground any time soon thus maybe a discussion that Robert, David an Bill M have pushed for awhile ---a deeper understanding of a national UW strategy or revolutionary populations and their development into insurgencies might also be a way forward for discussions.

[Fuchs]

The concept of "small wars" has actually entered into a totally new sphere.

Attention has indeed been (in the West) on violent occupation missions for a decade. By now, government violence below the threshold to conventional warfare has attracted more attention, and led to a renewed interest in deterring such activities.

It's been once more an utter failure to get the 'fashion' right until the deficiency was obvious to every half-wit. And I insist that several self-proclaimed or 'recognised' "security policy experts" fall into the category of said half-wits.
Much style, no substance. That's part of Western defence policy troubles and the reason for an incredible waste of resources.


Wouldn't it be fascinating if there was a place that's not drumming the beat of the fashion du jour, but giving international security problems their due attention?