Pashtun / Pashtunwali / Pashtunistan (catch all)

[Ken White]

...and railway ties in a room finished with gypsum.

Bad allegory in most senses but very good in one -- do not try to do a job with the wrong tools and materials...

A market segmentation approach would acknowledge the impression two simultaneous wars have on the youth bulge while acknowledging the long-term view of our resident grey-beards.

Equally bad silliness. No market involved; The youth bulge is, mostly, too shallow and narcissistic to really have a clue and the grey beards obviously aren't into long term views. If they were, we wouldn't be in this position. Apply that to, not least, the education system * , moral values * , the health care issues -- plural -- the economic situation or the wars ** . The wars at least have causes not solely related to US arrogance, greed, intransigence and stupidity even though all those adverse attributes plus a glaring lack of imagination and military acumen are obvious in the way we are 'fighting' them.

Can we find a way to cost effectively improve America's position?

Easy -- stop interfering with other nations, develop that missing long term view and when attacked, repel the attack rapidly, forcefully, effectively with the right tools for the job and don't get stuck on stupid and expensive (in all aspects) long term building projects while fighting people you don't need to fight.

The Comintern & Socialist International comment has me scratching my head...are you saying these folks abolished the bourgeois and associated state in Afghanistan?

Not at all; over the last three quarters of a Century, they purposely have preached non-violence etc. etc. (for the west, not themselves), they infiltrated the educational systems, provided moral dysfunction to weaken the west (see the asterisked items above) and have generally aimed toward world government on the so-called Social Democratic model and they did all that quite well. They effectively emasculated their perceived enemy in the strictest sense of the word. They also fomented hate and discontent on all the fault lines that the British and French created by drawing lines on maps to establish territorial jurisdictions which are now, nominally Nations. They did that in the course of weakening the west (the double asterisks above) and, again, were quite successful.

I take issue with the apparent implication that all that is needed to regulate conflict is the application of that single variable, force/security.

Your perception of an implication is your problem. I did not write nor did I imply what you say. What I did write was that the measured application of force can negate willpower, no more. I also said that the west is unlikely to apply great -- I will now say 'adequate' -- force due to the aforesaid emasculation and current societal norms. That failure (and it is that) literally invites us into still more expensive FID rebuilding fiascoes when the object should be to avoid them due to their base inefficiency as a mechanism, their tendency to provide low rate but continuing casualties and the long term commitment and expense entailed.

Over the course of a year in Iraq I learned first hand that the deft application of a mixture of variables (security, governance, economics, information, and diplomacy) in a AO can more or less cost effectively regulate conflict levels. I also note that the daily application of this multivariate formula, to regulate conflict, is often used to great success inside of a variety of nation-states to include the US

I do not doubt that, I've seen that application -- rarely at all deft, just clumsily adequate -- many places and know it can do that. I also have seen tailored and effective (not necessarily massive, just well designed) force properly and rapidly applied then as rapidly removed when the message was sent and received eliminate the need to do the multivirate, multi-year and multi-expensive thing...

Further, I've noted that such an effort removes the need to regulate conflict because the short sharp conflict causes less damage and fewer casualties of all types in the long term.

It is not cost effective to enter into a long term multivariate application of security, governance, economic, information, and diplomatic actions when a short, sharp blow can be as or more effective in eliminating a threat or ameliorating a problem. There may be times when such missions are unavoidable. I've not seen one that met that criteria since 1949. Not one.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Wilf

The idea that military force cannot defeat the insurgency is rubbish. It's just in this case it's politically pointless, because the cost cannot match the benefit.

Posted by Ken

The problem is thus lack of political will, not a failure of force. Applying minimal force -- up to your (and the COIN crowd's) probable level -- will doom us to a never ending conflict in which the opposition will ultimately gain the advantage due to western emotional exhaustion.

Turning the other cheek got us where we are...

Easy -- stop interfering with other nations, develop that missing long term view and when attacked, repel the attack rapidly, forcefully, effectively with the right tools for the job and don't get stuck on stupid and expensive (in all aspects) long term building projects while fighting people you don't need to fight.

I agree with Wilf to a point, but there is a large degree of asymmetry in our current western way of conducting political warfare compared to our foes. Insurgency is political warfare at the tactical level (conventional warfare is also waged for political purposes, but the political aspects are generally waged at the strategic level, military force compells State leaders to negotiate).

The communists, the taliban, and others are successful with their use of force because they direct it against the people to the degree necessary to force them to organize politically under their party (dissenters either keep quiet or have a short life). On the other hand, we come in with our western ideas of economic development, free markets, and democracy. In short we're pushing more chaos on top of chaos in a post conflict situation, under the "assumption" that the people will embrace this, when what they're looking for at this point is some degree of security and predictability, not blue dye on their finger. The other side is doing a better job of providing this. If we're going to meddle in other people's affairs, then we need to slow the train down, apply the appropriate level force to suppress the will of the people to fight us, force a form of political organization upon them (the closer to their accepted norms the easier it will be), and then, and only then, if we can afford to be altruistic we can gradually "encourage" them to evolve towards democracy and more effective economic models. I agree with Wilf, insurgencies can be defeated or perhaps more accurately suppressed, but probably not by western forces using our current doctrine. We're too impatient and prolong the conflict by pushing democracy too quickly.

To Ken's points I agree 100%. We have other options (or at least we did before we articulated to the world we were going to spread democracy and free markets) for detering attacks, and we can respond to attacks with overwhelming force when appropriate. We don't have to default to occupation and nation building in every case. Other options generally have a greater chance of success (regardless if that success is short lived or not, because realistically that is the best we can hope for in many cases). Furthermore, in the long run they are less cruel than the current norm of protracted conflict.

In some situations it is in our interests to engage in protracted conflicts, but there seems to be this thought that our nation's strategy requires us to rebuild Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and a handfull of other countries in our image because that is the only way we can win, which IMO is simply a day dream, and a very dangerous one.

[Ken White]

is an admirable goal, folks forget that military force is not at all amenable to that -- those are intelligence, diplomatic and aid related efforts, all mostly civilian and non-combat functions. Plus the effort is most often not going to produce results worth the risk and cost.

I do not question that we need well trained and adequately resourced IW, CA and PsyOps elements to do FID and SFA. Nor do I question they will be needed when all other options fail. They simply should not be the first -- or the only -- choice. We neglected those areas for too long and while we have now hauled them back aboard, we still need to do more to enhance their capabilities.

However, we also need to do far better in efforts to avoid their use AFTER the issue has developed into a need for force and GPF commitment. We must have the capability to do that but we somehow have to sort out the conflicts that arise from simply having a capability means to many that it must be used. I've carried a concealed firearm, legally and illegally (in some places) for many years but I have yet to use any of them other than twice in quite different circumstances as a display of capability.

This statement of yours:

"...there seems to be this thought that our nation's strategy requires us to rebuild Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia and a handful of other countries in our image because that is the only way we can win, which IMO is simply a day dream, and a very dangerous one."

is quite correct and attempts to 'help' that cause more problems and chaos do not really help anyone.

That statement ranks right up there with Dave Maxwell's:

"Perhaps we should strike COIN and CT from the lexicon and talk about real strategy of ends, ways, and means instead of trying to devise strategy based on formulas (e.g., 20-25 troops for every 1000 people) - of course we love the science because it is too hard to explain the art."

Strategy is indeed an art -- and good strategy avoids conflict or if conflict must happen, sets the parameters to one's own advantage.

Playing by the other guy's rules is just dumb, no matter how well you attempt to play...