My experience in my country has been quite contrary to your statement that - Military types don't like to think that all problems cannot be solved with high explosives,
Actually, it is the politicians who think that military actions alone can solve insurgencies while they dither over trying to find a political solution and then dither away endlessly.
Even in the Second Iraq War, the Plan envisioned the tactical aspect but only to the point of how to win the military aspect and not how to disengage once the military action was over and occupy to implement the political plan.
Events thereafter indicate a series of 'spit and paste' jobs which lacked any political vision, resulting in the chaos that ensued and still ensuing.
The issue is that it is incumbent to 'think through' the Plan and coalesce the political objectives with the military plan, and also how the political objectives will take over from the military once the military action is over, in a seamless manner.
In most cases, I think the military does it part of the Plan well, but then the politicians seem to lose their way since they cannot think beyond the immediate.
That leaves the military holding the can, with the hapless politicians hoping that 'something' is conjured so as to exit the mess with as much of 'saving face', as is possible.
Here, in this dilemma of the politicians, 'whiz kids' amongst the military keep alive this false hope with gung ho ideas and schemes.
It is totally an incorrect surmise that gung ho military actions can replace political solutions. It fact, military action without political actions, is the sure shot elixir to lose whatever is gained.
I could go on and indicate how Indian UN contingent do better than most in war ravaged countries, including Somalia which was a horror to many. But then that would not be on topic.
Bookmarks