Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
You can say "we need smart power" or "we need effective solutions tailored to the specific problems at hand" or you could say any number of other things, and all would be correct... but I'm not convinced that saying the words brings us closer to accomplishing the goals. That's especially true when the words are being said by people with only a few years on the ground in the environment in question - or even less - and a completely insufficient understanding of what they are attempting to influence.

Too often I've seen foreigners, and most particularly Americans, walk into troubled countries, look around in a circle, instantly identify "the problem", and dive into a marvelously energetic but generally disastrous attempt at a solution. The problem-solving orientation is not entirely a bad thing, but misapplied, or based on assumptions, preconceptions, or excessively rapid deductions it can do enormous damage.

It is certainly true that economic stagnation and unemployment contribute to conflict, in Afghanistan and in many other places. It is true that many conflicts could be ended if economies could be fixed. Unfortunately, fixing an economy is as difficult, complex, and time-consuming as winning a war, often more so....
Dayuhan,

Is it fair for me to Reply to your well-considered note a full eleven months after you wrote it? This feels a bit like the pace of exchanging letters from war during the 18th century.

In any case, I just have to say how very closely your statements land to what it is I'm trying to say. I consider myself at fault if my message isn't coming through, but I just have to keep looking at your challenges to my assertions to find the better way to say it!

From your paragraph 1, above, you suggest that we could say, "We need effective solutions tailored...." That's absolutely true. We could - and should - say that. Then you continue that saying it won't bring us closer to accomplishing the goals. Again, I agree. That's why applied smart power (ASP) has the word "applied" built into it. We have to apply what we understand, not just form committees to debate whether we should form a committee to explore the theories.

The first flows into the second paragraph with regard to the disastrous results possible when Americans barge into a crisis situation with inadequate understanding of the ground truth and inject best intentions that worsen the crisis. Again-again, I agree. It has been the height of self-destructive arrogance to blast in and scrunch a one-size-fits-all American (or British, in centuries past) paradigm onto an unexamined local cultural reality. That's why ASP demands understanding all cultures in play. Understanding the host populations is the only way to have any realistic hope of understanding the problems and thus comprehending possible solutions.

ASP doesn't force solutions into locals' mouths, it listens carefully to those locals' mouths before there can be even the slightest chance of making a meaningful contribution.

I have to quote the final comment from above: "Unfortunately, fixing an economy is as difficult, complex, and time-consuming as winning a war, often more so...."

Let's be coldly objective about the two options described. Let's take the optimistic view that fixing an economy costs exactly the same as winning a war. Which provides the greater value in the end?

We can "win" a war and end up with a shattered economy that implodes the week after we win and fly back to Los Angeles. The result is plainly lose-lose: we again face the threat of radicals streaming out of the freshly-crumbled society and spend the money all over again to win again. Or we can fix an economy and empower the legitimate (an entirely different subject for debate!) government to easily subdue and isolate the enemy force.

In such simple terms, it's painfully clear where the better investment is. It would even be justified to spend more for such a worthy outcome, much like the choice I made this week to spend extra for organic marinara sauce. We invest in things that will provide a greater return. So many of us from the military forces lean toward a forceful solution to problems without taking the moment to consider what our actual best case scenario will be down the line.

I'm not squeamish about the usefulness of killing. Few SEALs would get very far if they came on as conscientious objectors. The question simply isn't on whether to use violence, but where and how much. We have to begin to take the long view and combine it with a selfish view: "What's in it for me...in the long term?"