Applied Smart Power by a SEAL

[Dayuhan]

The fact that non-state actors are supporting (in some cases with State support) effective insurgencies, NGOs that provide medical care and preach violent jihad (it's working, so it is influence, thus power), and build their version of schools (and pay for students around the world to attend them) to further mobilize the 1.3 billion Sunni Umna clearly indicates that non-state actors have considerable economic power.

I wouldn't call that economic power, I'd call it the effective application of limited economic resources to the development of ideological power. Semantic difference really, two descriptions of the same phenomenon.

The other side of the coin is that our state based economic power centers are more vulnerable to attack than non-state economic centers of gravity.

Here I'd say that our task is less to attack an economic center of gravity than an ideological center of gravity. if the ideology is effectively undermined and loses its appeal, the economic resources dry up. Since the economic needs of jihad are really quite modest it will be difficult to close them off effectively.

Those who study these matters have always known there are some problems where the military is the correct response and other cases they're simply a supporting arm if they're a player at all. As you look throughout our history you can find several examples of so called smart power. Smart power could actually mean something, it could mean developing our human capital with education, but I'm off on another subject....

To me the danger of the "smart power" construct lies in the assumption that since reliance on military power alone is seen within this construct as "not smart", any introduction of non-military elements will automatically make our use of power "smart". This is completely fallacious: any type of power and any combination of types of power can be used stupidly. There is no smart ratio of hard to soft power that applies universally. Smartness requires a realistic assessment of a problem and the selection of appropriate tools to solve that problem. Some problems may require all hard power, sopme all soft, some a blend, but in any case the outcome is only smart if it represents a realistic solution to the problem, based on an honest, detailed assessment devoid of ideological preconceptions.

I think you missed the mark on this one, due to political correctness we attempt to impose what are perceived as hostile Western solutions that suit our views (not necessarily our interests). If we would wake up and realize we can't always impose our views upon others (unless we're willing to do so by force), then we'll develop more realistic policies. I think we may agree on this one?

Certainly we can agree that realism is desirable, and that ideology and preconception - politically correct or otherwise - generally obstruct realism. I'm sure we'd find a thing or two to disagree about as well, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.