Blog Post Critique of FM 3.07

[mikekuhn]

I found an interesting blog on International Aid that is hosted/written by Dr. William Easterly titled "Aid Watch". He's the author of the book “White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good”. There are a pair of posts on his blog that might be of particular interest to the SWJ Community; in one post titled "J'accuse: the US Army's Development Delusions" Dr. Easterly goes after FM 3-07 saying that "(m)ore in sorrow than in anger, I see the utopian social engineering craze might affect actions of people with guns. I am sad for Iraqis and Afghans that the U.S. Army is operating in their countries guided by such misguided ideas”. In a response to his critique, LTC Steve Leonard, from LTG Caldwell’s Commander’s Initiatives Group, argues that “the manual is not intended to serve as military solution to a much broader and more complex problem, but a guide for military leaders to better understand and execute their appropriate roles and responsibilities within the framework of national and international approaches to these operations”.

Dr. Easterly’ blog is a bit provocative, but I've found it interesting and the debate worth reading. Just thought I'd share in case it would interest anyone.

[Ken White]

"More in sorrow than in anger, I see the utopian social engineering craze might affect actions of people with guns."

I could phrase it differently but his point, Armies are not the right people for the job, is more than valid.

[goesh]

It sure makes the Obama Admin look weak, IMO, very weak and femmy when it comes to killing enemies - dragging ol' 'shotgun' Cheney into it, like a bunch of whining kids uncertain of themselves and needing a scapegoat in case something doesn't show well in the polls.

[William F. Owen]

we will …defeat insurgency, assist fragile states, and provide vital humanitarian aid to the suffering. …. to promote participation in government, spur economic development, and address the root causes of conflict among the disenfranchised populations of the world….{with} a comprehensive approach to stability operations that integrates the tools of statecraft with our military forces, international partners, humanitarian organizations, and the private sector.

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but isn't that all about strategic aims?
Isn't this a bit above the pay grade of those associated with issue concerned? Stability Operations, should support the strategy. Not the other way around.

[Tom Odom]

Correct me, if I'm wrong, but isn't that all about strategic aims?

Answer: yes, certainly relates to lines of effort

Isn't this a bit above the pay grade of those associated with issue concerned?

Answer: hardly, as they are inherent in stability operations to one degree or another, which are in support (hopefully) of a strategy

Tom

[William F. Owen]

Answer: yes, certainly relates to lines of effort

Answer: hardly, as they are inherent in stability operations to one degree or another, which are in support (hopefully) of a strategy

Tom

OK, the content and purpose of the Manual is predicated, on explicitly stated strategic aims, such as,
"address the root causes of conflict among the disenfranchised populations of the world."
Am I the only person uncomfortable with that? Sounds like a an entirely political statement to me.