Violence is a tactical choice, no more, no less. It does not in my experience and studies add much to helping to understand the nature or category of any particular problem, situation or organization.

We in the US military rely far too heavily on the presence or absence of violence to define problems and organizations, and also to determine success or failure. Think this tendency creates one of the largest (and completely self-imposed) mental obstacles to getting to clearer, more effective understanding on much of what we have wrestled with over the past 12 (yes, 12) years.

At some point I am sure we will pause and consider what our lack of strategic progress in the face of so much tactical success really means in terms of the flaws of how we have framed many of these problems.

Oh, and I am not sure whether to laugh or cry at the irony of the current debate regarding Syria as to if we should arm the non-violent rebels are not. What do non-violent rebels need with arms??? Is our goal to turn them into violent rebels?? Would we then stop working with them and condemn them along with the other groups employing violent tactics to challenge the Assad government?