Quote Originally Posted by Old Eagle View Post
I fully understand both of your concerns. However, I am at a loss as to what the alternative might be. Occupation comes to mind, but that can be long and messy and woefully unpopular both at home and in the HN.

Let's keep this discussion rolling.

In my Rethinking Insurgency study, I argued that rather than viewing Foreign Internal Defense, with its emphasis on advice and assistance, as a one-size-fits all model, we only use it where it has a good chance of working--there is a reasonably effective security force and government willing to undertake serious reform, and which view the conflict the same way we do (e.g. El Salvador). When there is no functioning security force or government (e.g. Iraq), if there is mulitnational and U.N. support to create and sustain a trusteeship for a decade, we participate. If not, we simply work with neighboring states to contain the conflict and limit the humanitarian suffering through aid and the creation of safe zones (e.g. Somalia, initially).

On nations not yet facing conflict, advice and support can be positive but, again, it often will not work. Many African states, for instance, have what we consider to be ineffective security forces. So our instinct is to provide advice and support to make them more effective. But we forget that African governments often see their own military as a greater threat than insurgents, so they don't want them to be more effective. This sort of dissonance is a real problem for us.