Pakistani internal security (catch all)

[Bob's World]

Surferbeetle,


Who can ever top the simple genius of "every Marine a rifleman" that lies at the core of that great organization? Not a slogan, but a commitment to a clear and simple priority.

Today in SOF a phrase rolling around is "3-D Warrior." Different organization, different mission, different ethos, and thus different priorities. The 3 D's talks to the three aspects of engagement: Defense, Diplomacy and Development; Warrior talks to the essence of the SOF operator that is out there working in varying degrees in all three of those 3-D aspects. (Ken is firing up his reply now to take on the choice of the word "warrior" and make that case that a good soldier beats a good warrior - though history has certainly shown that too firm of a belief in that can get you massacred, be it on the plains of North America or Africa...). As a joint command of Soldiers, Marines, Sailors and Airmen a generic "3-D Serviceperson" just lacked pizzazz, so "warrior" it is.

More importantly we also attempt to make the case that none of us, be one from State, Aid, or the Military, can simply say "I just do development" or "I just do defense" or "I just do diplomacy." The primary message of the concept is that in these complex, populace-based conflicts we all must work together, and clear delineations are not helpful.


Beyond that though, my larger concern is that we as we have arguably become overly engaged with military presence that we look to becoming equally overly engaged with civilian presence to create balance. My theory is that this is because as Americans, where we have Democratic and relatively effective government, and little popular conflict; we draw the flawed conclusion that the creation of democracy and effective government elsewhere will resolve populace-based conflicts there.

My theory is that we lack these conflicts because we have self-determination of governance and "goodness" of governance. That because Americans believe with certainty that no matter how dissatisfied they may be with their government, that they have the legitimate means to change it.

I believe that the much smaller mission set of enabling self-determination and goodness of governance is far more likely to produce the results we desire than the far more labor intensive and difficult mission of forcing democracy and creating "effectiveness" (by our terms) in places that may well have little need or desire for either one...