Afghanistan troop surge could backfire, experts warn

[MSG Proctor]

No beef with this, except to note "co-option" is a very loaded term. I'd prefer the concept of "promoting existing themes and strategies that emanate from the locals." Semantics, perhaps, but "promulgating" smacks (to my ear) a bit too much of agitprop. Anyway, the key is "that emanate from the locals."

We been der, done that: in the late 1940s to mid 1960s programs promoting local political parties, media outlets, academic organizations, labor unions and student associations, in foreign countries (think Willi Brandt) - which were supported by cognate groups in the US, such as the National Student Association (NSA). Generally, the foreign groups were to the left of US mainstream politics of that era. In general, those programs (the brain-children of Cord Meyer and others) worked.

But, lots of stuff hit the fan when the lid was lifted in 1966-1967. Which led to all sorts of flak.

...while perhaps theoretically sound ("covert" becomes "non-covert" rather easily), is subject to blowback prospects. That seems especially so where religion is concerned - a far more explosive materiel than student affairs.

jmm99:
Thanks for the feedback. Co-opt is a military colloquialism and my usage (hopefully) explained the intent. Promulgate in the way I am using it just means to disseminate with a clear intent of obtaining compliance, ie, a high ranking cleric council issues a fatwa defining Muslim sacred obligation to support the government and defeat the taqfirists in armed jihad.

By covert I do not mean SECRET. In COIN, as Dr. Kilcullen and others point out, them (host nation) doing something tolerably is better than us doing it with excellence. Perhaps covert is the wrong term and I should have said something to the effect of CF staying in the background and out of the headlines as they support orthodox Muslim leaders and interreligious councils.

Thanks for the corrections...