It is from a different perspective and is admittedly biased toward that perspective but it makes a point that merits some thought by a lot of people.

The Civil and the Military efforts in stability operations are two different things. In US practice for a variety of reasons, the Armed Forces have assumed primacy in such operations and we have thus mingled the two efforts in an unsatisfactory blend that does neither the Civil or the Military role as well as could be expected -- and as should have been expected...

One of those reasons, BTW, is not the oft quoted "The military folks have to do it due to the security situation." That can be true early on; it should not be allowed to continue past its 'sell-by' date.

So, biased, yes -- but it merits thought with respect to what is a military function and what is not: LINK.