Ok, we've drilled on another distinct aspect of the problem, and it is probably time to go back to the original premise of this thread:
To simply pursue "defeat" of certain named threats, while potentially possible on those threats, has negative effects across the spectrum of actors and may well be producing a net strategic loss in the pursuit of tactical gains. So, how do we look much more holistically across the spectrum of actors and interests, and design more balanced approaches of engagement, both to "Encourage" favorable behavior and "Discourage" destructive behavior?
A little less threat focused capture/kill and ever expanding target lists (both organizations and states they operate from) balanced with a little more looking at the relationships of the West with these governments, working to continue to excise colonial baggage and encourage evolutionary reforms based on local values, not ours; etc. What I call "Full-Spectrum Deterrence."
Do we attempt to "deter" AQ directly?? No, it would be counter-productive. We hit them indirectly, we work smarter, not harder to use their momentum against them, to twist their words to our benefit, to replace them once again in the minds of the populaces of this region as the outside force that can help them achieve positive change.
We can refurbish our reputation here. For 150 years we didn't have colonial "rights" to mandate policy or take what we wanted; so we negotiated from positions as equals and paid cash. We were told our missionaries could not preach Christianity; so they built universities and hospitals instead. They suffered under the colonial boot; and we were the example of the little guy who grabbed the boot and threw the colonial master out. Our ideology still supports this type of engagement. The problem is that the idealist youth has grown up and become his father. But as a nation, we are old before our time, it is not too late to recapture the ideals of our youth and merge them with the wisdom of our experiences and move on.
Bookmarks