Jones, I don't want to speak for FM, but I didn't see anything in his post about tactically defeating our enemy. As a matter of fact, I think you validate his point that we're an offensive people, who develop quick solutions to complex problems that are always wrong. The goal is to win without fighting, at least offensive fighting, which simply feeds their propaganda machine and makes their movement stronger. We feel we must take action, and it that action that compounds are troubles. We can't win a political or ideological war when we're always on the offense. We're playing into our enemy's hands.

The strategy isn't force, you can't win this type of war with force. The strategy is to achieve a moral victory by discrediting their ideology, or better letting them discredit their own ideology.

Presidents are compelled by culture and western logic to respond to a threat with overwhelming force, instead of appropriate force. We're like a big, mad, drunk in a bar fight, you simply dodge a few punches, and the fat man is too tired to do anything else. We're quickly tiring from our "force" response, and we have accomplished very little. On the other hand we have harmed our relationships with other key nations, and in many ways completely changed the way world perceives us for the worse.

We haven't learned much from our history of small wars. GEN Schumacher was right when he allegedly said we have managed to become the Redcoats. We're a dogmatic military with an inept State Department swinging wildly.

For FM's strategy outline to work (far from complete by the way, but heading the right direction) it would require intellectual leadership, and a majority of politically active citizens that supported that type of leadership. Do you really think a democracy would allow that? Our political campaigns are largely based on child like assaults on opponents character, and promises based on buzz words that polls indicate will motiviate support like health care, jobs, defense, axis of evil, and other such simpleton expressions.

I still select elements of our military force need to be applied, but in a well thought out manner, that can be justified, not just to our collesium, but to foreign audiences as well. When we send in conventional forces, then use the Powell doctrine, use overwhelming force to achieve very specific and obtainable objectives, then get out! If we disire to use military forces to "assist" influence an area long term, then use or unconventional/irregular forces as required, but again only if it is feasible and we can maintain the high moral ground.

FM, I enjoyed your paper as a start for a new strategy.