I've always been rather intrigued with what Peters REALLY thinks as opposed to some of his rather exaggerated writings.
I happen to agree with you about the United States not being especially suited for either approach to COIN. Part of it, perhaps, boils down to our political system, which has never been known for cultivating patience. With a low-scale revolution every two years, the majority of elected policy makers just don't focus on one thing long enough.
And AA, Ataturk was a "strongman" to the Turks in the same sense that Washington was a "strongman" to the United States. Tom's written some about this before, but to classify him as a "strongman" does not even begin to capture what he means to Turkey in general and the military's role in that nation in particular. And one could also argue that France's "democtratization" came with a ruthless "de-Royalist" campaign headed by a number of people. I believe the roots of Britain's democracy is also littered with a fair number of corpses. Our own beginnings also involved a certain amount of activity against Loyalist elements within the colonies.It's important to remember that its "democratization" has come hand in hand with a ruthless "de-Islamicization" campaign started by strongman Ataturk.
History is not black and white in most cases, no matter how much we may wish that it was so. Quite often the blacks and whites are hidden by multiple shades of gray.
Bookmarks