Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
1-Page 79 covers teaching,setting up clinics,construction,and agricultural. As for the rest of your comments it just proves my point that Kitson said the Army must be trained and prepared to do everything, if civilian assets are available great to use them but you can not depend on that because of the unknown or deteriorating situation you may face. Which is why he wrote the book in the first place to help prepare the Army for such situations.
All this refers to the "preparatory phase." Nothing wrong with soldiers doing that, the same way you use soldiers for hurricane relief. It is a putting forth of policy - my beef with massive social programs, and not some remedial action, is that you are providing targets for the insurgent. If the bad guys burn down the school, where are you then. The social programs have got to run in context of the violence. They will not stop it, and they only might prevent it starting.

2- The Baby Milk reference is Kitson, since he was using it to demonstrate a point about how one might co-opt the enemy by using non-violent means.
Look at the context. If you can, then there is no problem. What about the die hard jihadist?

"Those who are not capable of developing these characteristics are inclined to retreat into their Military shells and try not to notice what is going on around them. They adopt the 'fit soldier with a rifle theory', and long for the days when they can get back to 'proper soldiering' by which they mean preparing for the next-or last-war,as opposed to fighting the current one"
Absolutely agree with that.
As I said there is no CvC in this book. CvC's definition or "War as the use of violence to impose one's will" is not compatible with the modern low intensity conflicts where subversion (mental violence) is so prevalent.
It's all CvC. That is exactly the point he is trying to put across. The political dimension to conflict. Subversion is the use of non-violent means (mostly). So what? Subversion is politics.