Same guy?
LINK

As you said, nothing new. Galula, Clausewitz, O'Neill, Callwell all wrote about it. Magsaysay and others did it. Rings, tables, to do lists. Same requirements in a different wrapping. We seem to be following the lead of the business world with all these "new" concepts, but most of the time we end up right back where we started, just like the business world.

We know what has to be done, we need to quit re-wrapping the package and get on with it.

I thought this was interesting:
Contrary to Clausewitz, destruction of the enemy military is not the essence of war; the essence of war is convincing the enemy to accept your position, and fighting his military forces is at best a means to an end and at worst a total waste of time and energy.
Does anybody here believe this will really work with the enemy we face now? Or any other True Believers?

Looks like a "more sensitive approach" with a group that saws heads to me.

He also needs to study Clausewitz more. He is making the same mistake many do. Clausewitz goes on to address less than total war, even admitting it will be the case most often. Destruction of the enemy is indeed the essence of war - whether or not it reaches that point is a conscience decision depending on the circumstances. But the essence of war does not change.

To go into a war with anything less as mindset is to go in half-assed and asking for defeat.