My biggest beef with Kilcullin's proposal is that he is proposing that "we" have to protect the population. That isn't a counterinsurgency, that is an occupation and again I beat my drum "armed nation building".

I assume the analysis exists (well maybe not), but is it a fact that the people are turning to the Taliban because they're being coerced because we're not protecting them, or do they simply prefer Taliban leadership? It sounds to me like we're making some wild assumptions here based on our Western bias of what good government should look like. Does you're average Afghan really want to live under a Western Style government with radically different values? Are they fighting us because the Taliban is standing behind them with bayonets to their backs, or are they fighting us because well...... we're us?

I don't necessarily disagree with starting in the cities first, I don't see how you could it any other way, but two notes of caution. One we're not starting, we been there seven years now. Ideally you would have a strategy before you start fighting, but we weren't afforded that luxuary in Afghanistan. Two, you better have a plan to expand out from the cities without losing the cities, otherwise the cities become isolated outposts, which leads to economic isolation and ruin. The bad guys will eventually hurl a few diseased carcasses into the city and....., you know the deal.

Beyond that, begin with the end in mind, and that requires answering what type of government do the Afghan people want? Acceptance and evolutionary change at a glacial pace is generally more effective than revolutionary change imposed by an outside power. Revolutions succeed because they are the will of the people, not a foreign power.

Once we determine what type of government they want, how do we empower that government, how do we put their face in the lead on all operations, how do we empower them to control their population? That needs to be our long term exit strategy, and if we have to keep that in mind at all times. We can provide security to some degree (unless we pass the tipping point and turn the populace against us, which we may be doing if you believe the media reports), but before we commit to these major security operations (it terribly late in the game to start implementing step one of a basic COIN strategy), why are we doing it? Security of the populace is critical because it creates a window of opportunity for something to happen (a political settlement), and we should have that something in mind in mind before we act. Protectng the population is essential, and that is beyond debate, forget the myth of network targeting and focus on changing the environment. Just remember that protecting the population in itself doesn't win the conflict. How do we win? Strategy before tactics.