"Message: The enemy has taken advantage of globalization and the populations of impoverished nations to create safe havens for his organizations, and recruit additional foot soldiers. Unless the conditions that lead to destabilization are addressed, we will expend greater resources in conflict resolution and termination.[/QUOTE]"

Part of this problem is the dilemma of jihadist commanders, organizers and financiers coming from non-impoverished nations with their education, worldliness, affluence and sophisticated IO, bearing messages of liberation and spiritual purity via the gun and jihad. Bin Laden, al-Zawahiri and some of the 9/11 hijackers are classic examples of this. What guarantee is there that if upon teaching a man to fish and feed himself, instead of simply giving him fish to eat, that said man will still not be receptive to the ideology of fundamentalist jihad? The alleviation of poverty and deprivation IMO does not create immunity from this. We have no clue as to how much money average Muslims living in non-impoverished nations are giving to the jihadist cause(s). We know some money is given but that to a degree contradicts our premise that material contentment eliminates the need for radicalism and violence. Something is afoot, that those living with plenty would support acts of violence directly aimed at Muslim civilians. Clothes, food, medicine, advisors, books, equipment, etc. in any large amount are not being funneled into impoverished nations, yet cash is being given to the radicals. From my own Peace Corps experience, I learned that from the perspective of recipients, the ideology behind humanitarian development is pretty much divorced from the implementation of goods and services. I was often asked why I left the good life with electricity, running water, cars and good food to come live in the bush. It was impossible for them to understand why I was there. Though I was always respected and never experienced any animosity, I was told more than once that Allah would provide what was truly needed. This is a tough nut to crack and I would agree that alleviating poverty certainly diminishes the tactical ability of radicals but it is not a panacea. If we look at the reality of Iraq and agree that Iraq posed no immediate strategic threat to America, we have to ask what gives us high enlistment rates and generates volunteerism amongst our young men, and women, that they would willingly face death and injury? Certainly not the food and pay and the chance to live in sand and heat and be shot at. I simply think there are many counterparts out there who come to Iraq and the Pakistan frontier and places like Chechnya and Kasmir for the same reasons. I just don’t think we have yet achieved a comprehensive understanding of the ideological drive of our foes. There are significant differences of opinion as to what really makes them tick and it transfers over to the application of doctrine and tactics and keeps both in too much flux. There is an esoteric divergence in our defense forces that the average citizen does not see and is not privy to. The fact that the COIN camp in particular is reaching out for new alliances, new input and insight from civilians clearly demonstrates this esoteric divergence.

Something has to give. With .5+ trillion spent, roughly 4,000 KIA and 4+ years on two fronts, we don’t have much on the ground to show for it. Somebody has to step up to the plate because IMO our foes are capitalizing most on this divergence.