Deterrence of Irregular Threats

[Entropy]

In this case I believe these groups are best deterred indirectly by addressing the perceptions of inappropriate legitimacy over their government at a minimum, and by also enabling evolution of better governance in these important states where we do have critical national interests that require our presence.

This would seem to change the traditional notion of deterrence significantly. A primary component of deterrence is fear - either the fear of repercussions of an action, or fear of failure or whatever. It seems to me if one takes the fear out then it's not deterrence anymore, but something else.

BTW, you are probably familiar with this:

Deterrence (Old View)-The prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction. (Joint Pub 1-02 definition)

vs.

Strategic Deterrence (New View) --The prevention of adversary aggression or coercion that threatens vital interests of the United States and/or our national survival. Strategic deterrence convinces adversaries not to take grievous courses of action by means of decisive influence over their decision making.

Again, while I don't think that "new view" is invalid as a concept, I don't think it's "deterrence." Perhaps "strategic influence" is a better term or something else.

[Entropy]

Wilf raises an excellent point that deterrence is dependent upon credibility and if the adversary believes you are constrained (for any number of reasons) from acting, then deterrence has failed.