Steve Metz has published a valuable article.

[MikeF]

Good job Steve Metz. Lots of common-sense packed into a quick read.

As far as I can see the "New COIN" and the Stabilisation strategy in general backs you into a place where you want to act Colonial, but not actually be Colonial.

Naw, Wilf. The American Empire just practices a unique brand that I'll call politically-correct colonialism. We really shouldn't be in the Empire business. We're much better off when we don't meddle into others affairs.

Ken said:

As do I and hopefully we'll find it. There may be times when commitment to FID is not an option and we must be prepared for those. However, they can be few and far between and it is in our interest as a nation that be so. I agree. My point is that, simply, we do not do that FID thing well and are never likely to do so; the national psyche and, more importantly, the national political milieu and the US Army personnel system do not lend themselves to that kind of effort -- as we repeatedly prove. So prepare, yes -- but avoid large force efforts if possible. The cost far exceeds the results. Always.

I'll add some important notes to expound this comment.

Discretion and discernment should be taking into deep,thoughtful consideration before we "invest" our treasure and resources into another country. Indeed, we should look at any foreign investment as a loan. Every loan comes with a payment schedule that must be met. It's not free money. In this case, we are loaning our military, money, time, and our resources to another government. Think about it, if I went to BOA and asked for a loan while I have a crappy credit score, the bank is not going to give me money based on the fact that I'm a good dude, my kids need eat, and they fear me rising up in armed rebellion. They're going to look at credit history, my earning potential, and determine my risks verses their return on investment. We should do the same. Below are some considerations.

1. Did the host nation ask for our help? If not, then we're on a slippery slope to begin with.

2. What is the skill level (competence) of the host nation's governance and military apparatuses? In other words, our they capable of doing COIN without us? Is it worth the investment?

3. What is the will of the host nation? Are they looking to us for a handout, or are they going to be actively involved in solving their problems?

4. In the case where the host nation is sorely incompetent and incapable of governing, but their actions interfere with our national security, then we have many diplomatic options to deter. If those fail, then we have counter-terrorism and unconventional warfare as a last resort. However, I will submit that we should think like a bank. If someone forecloses on a mortgage and the bank reposses the house, the bank feels no moral obligation to find another home for the defaulter. In the same sense, if we conduct regime change, we should feel no obligation to follow up with nation-building. The "you break it, you buy it" theory is incorrect.

We gotta take these things much more seriously and start acting as an arbitrator and creditor not as a marraige counselor or Oprah. We CAN make investments to help others that are worthy of a loan help themselves. We CANNOT solve their problems for them b/c we feel bad about their circumstances.

v/r

Mike