Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
Wilf, for a man as smart and grounded in CvC as you are, I have to admit I find it very interesting your total fixation on the military aspect of warfare.
Well thanks for the compliment.... - likewise, you do not conduct yourself in a way that implies anything but considered and carefully crafted thought, based on some hard won experience.

Yes, I concentrate on WARFARE as a military/violent activity. My feeling is that warfare is inherently understandable and largely coherent. Nothing much is new. We have vast bodies of evidence.

I am not that concerned with the Political need which Warfare seeks to address. Politics is enmity, passion, and need. Those are not coherent or particularly predictable or understandable. Example.
Petraeus:
"The mission is to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other transnational extremists. That's what it had become before the operations conducted in the wake of 9/11. Al Qaeda wants to carry out further attacks on the US and our allies, and we need to deny them safe havens in which they can plan and train for such attacks."
OK, in reality AQ could have planned and conducted 911, using the brains of a ROTC graduate and a flat in Brooklyn. If AQ gets pushed from A'Stan, they will simply set up somewhere else. The mission as stated by Patraeus is strategically irrational, and based on no actual evidence. - and I don't care.

You could strongly suggest that the reason the US Govt. attacked the Taliban Regime was to address public demand. It was not an act of Strategy, it was an act of need. - and no less valid. There was no logical reason for the US or NATO to be in A'Stan, other than vengeance.

Strategy is not rational. Operational and tactical action should be, so I limit myself to the rational.