Rob,

Before I give a more detailed response (without wisecracks ), I do want to raise what I see as a serious flaw or, at least, a distinct impediment: the strategic focus is too tight. Let's take the example you used:

The mission is to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for al Qaeda and other transnational extremists.
Okay, that might be the mission for Afghanistan, but it cannot be the (Grand) strategic mission, otherwise we end up with AQ in a cave in the FATA, and the Taliban with safe zones there doing pretty much what they want... Oh, wait, they are !

This tightness of focus will, IMHO, cause the adoption of some seriously flawed assumptions for SFA. The one that is running around in my head right now is the flawed assumption that "nationality" is the pre-eminent component of identity (vs., say, kinship, ethnicity, religion, etc.). If we assume that a lot of SFA is taking place in so-called "fragile states", i.e. ones that never really developed a strong, unitary "national character", then it strikes me that this is a fatal flaw, since those other elements of identity (think of them as the bases of motivational factors)

  • cut across national boundaries, and
  • are limited in their motivational appeal.

I'm not trying to dump undrinkable liquid substances in your Wheaties, but I do think that this is a seriously flawed "strategic" assumption that needs to be addressed, especially in the light of SFA.