Small Wars in the "new" cash strapped Western economy

[Dayuhan]

Excellent question. If the policy cannot be made to work, using all instruments of power, then it is probably a dumb policy - The US periods Prohibition being a good example.

I would qualify that and say "all acceptable or reasonable instruments of power". The US might have succeeded in imposing prohibition if they'd shot drinkers on the spot, and we might succeed in imposing the governance we desire on Afghanistan by killing anyone who doesn't accept it... that doesn't make those instruments of power acceptable or reasonable. In general, if a policy can only be imposed through the use of exorbitant force, it's probably not a good policy. If the cost of imposing a policy exceeds the benefits the policy is supposed to produce, it's probably not a good policy.

If we're imposing policy on another country (something I personally think is generally not a great idea) and a significant portion of the populace objects to our policy, it's a pretty good sign that the policy needs work.

I think "Nation building" is probably in the same bracket

We agree on something... will wonders never cease?

BUT IF that is the policy, what do you do about those opposing it using violence?

That depends on why they're opposing it. If they are opposing the policy because they perceive it as a threat to their interests and using violence because they see no other available option, it may be possible to adjust the program so that neither their interests nor ours are necessarily compromised, or at least so that they see a reasonable prospect of peaceful resolution. People don't generally go to the considerable trouble of fighting without some reason. If the reason can be removed without compromising the goals of the policy, the fight can be settled without having to run about the place slaying and smiting. After all, it's not entirely reasonable to expect residents of other countries to submit to our policies: certainly they have no automatic obligation to do so. If we're in another country the onus is on us to adjust our policies to make them acceptable to the locals, not on the locals to submit to us.

It may be necessary to kill people; it may not be. Ideally killing would be the last resort, not the first. And if we're killing people who believe with reasonable cause that they are fighting to defend themselves or their interests, that again pushes us pack to a critical need to review and probably alter the policy. If our policy requires us to kill people who are doing exactly what we would do in their shoes, it's probably a bad policy.

IMO, the distinction between policy and strategy is vital to getting people to understand what strategy is.

Agreed. Also vital to getting people to understand what policy is, and how it affects strategy.