FID or UW: And does it matter?

[LS]

PLEASE DON'T REPLY HERE! I'VE STARTED THIS THREAD IN THE "GOVERNMENT AGENCIES' SUB-THREAD, AND WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THE/ANY DISCUSSION THERE.

The text below is intended to pursue subtle but perhaps important differences in the indirect consequences for our own leadership and membership as a consequence of the fundamental language we choose to describe our engagement; COIN vice FID, for example.

If the question interests you, or you can shed light on the issue, please contribute to the thread "there" http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...splay.php?f=48 rather than here.

Many thanks!

~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm looking for discussion and/or guidance (to references).

I just got back from working with COM ISAF on the 60-day assessment. One of the basic theological questions that we never really discussed, but rather took as a foregone conclusion was whether we should be using the lens, vocabulary, taxonomies, and metrics of a COIN operation or a FID mission.

This is theological and existential for me because in the former paradigm "we" (the US, the international community; external interested parties) are the center-of-effort and -gravity with respect to changing the situation on the ground. It's "our" strategies, our resources, our initiatives, etc. In the latter case (FID), it's very explicitly ~not~ the externals who are on the hook to win the thing.

I do know - first hand - that COIN preaches as a central tenent the primacy of host nation interests, actors, and governance. But that's like sex ed from a priest; it's not really as believable as the 'real deal,' which I think a FID model would better emulate.

If this has been written about, I'd like to know. And if there are opinions I'd love to hear them. I've been short with text here in respect for your (and my) time. I'm happy to wax more eloquent if this is a discussion that has legs.

Cheers all and thanks,

LS

[SWJED]

This looks like it should be a very valuable discussion. I've closed this thread as to insure we do not have parallel and competing dialogues on this issue.