Gentlemen, the troublemaker is back. I've been all over Afghanistan the past few weeks, usually with very poor or no bandwidth. Thanks to heavier pipes at tonight's base, I am able to re-enter the discussion.
Firstly, I want to thank everyone who's participating in the controversy. This much energy indicates that we're all focused on moving ahead in building security with maximum effectiveness; the argument seems to be about defining what "effective" means for each one. I genuinely respect each one of you for your deep base of experience and dedication to stopping bad guys. With every challenge, my own grasp of Applied Smart Power grows.
The biggest misunderstanding that's coming up repeatedly is the notion that, if we're only "beginning to use smart power" now, we're condemning all our past national efforts as "stupid". Alternatively, some are supposing that "smart power" means other than violent action. That's also off base. Smart Power is about using the most effective tool or combination of tools on a case-by-case basis. It's like our practical application in the SEAL Teams: learn many, many tools, then use what works according to the situation. (I'm pleased to report that, in addition to maintaining the reputation as consummate life-takers, many of my former Teammates are proving to be among the most effective at tribal engagements and developing invaluable relationships with local leaders in Iraq.)
The most useful paraphrase for what I call "applied" smart power so far is from Dayuhan. Ironically, even though he's expertly defining what I'm advocating, I believe his post is in the form of a criticism against the concept of smart power:
So that's it. What I'm expressing from immediate, ground truth experience in theater is that not enough attention is being given to the human needs of thousands of non-hostiles in OIF and OEF. Of course we have to shoot hostiles. Of course gate sentries have to use lethal force to stop a suicide bomber. But ignoring the crises of unemployment, for just one example, IS in fact stupid power.
Even a twenty-year-old local kid at Kandahar knows the source of much of what we're still fighting about in this forum. I asked him why, despite abuse and atrocities such as the recent marketplace bombing, the Taliban enjoy enough active or passive support to resist the incredible might of the US military. He didn't even pause for a second, but just answered directly: "Because men don't have jobs."
Military-age males, pissed and ashamed that they can't provide for a family, eventually say Screw It, resign themselves to the only game in town, and help the Taliban because they need money.
Think about it: every adult male reading this, whether you're a seven-foot-tall Dutchman from Amsterdam or a four-foot-tall pygmy from the rain forest, shares the identical masculine needs for respect and dignity. You require self respect. I mean, seriously, a quick glance at some of our inflated egos in print should suffice to prove this point.
As an edifying exercise, put yourself in the shoes of one of the thousands of neutral men in these provinces with no income, sick and hungry children, and only a single, solitary option for making a few bucks - the Taliban. A desperate man can easily rationalize that putting a device by the side of a road does not constitute deliberate violence against the Americans. "All I did is dig a hole, and the fundamentalists gave me $200 to live on for a month. Now my daughter can get the medicine for her dysentery."
Put foreign strangers at risk of possible harm, or lose your little girl? Tell me which you would choose. Yes, there is a real thing called stupid power. It lies in an unwillingness to consider all relevant facts in a matter that directly endangers me and my family.
By the way, I've been quoted in Homeland Security Today magazine. The piece on the recent Saudi suicide bomber is page 4 at: http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/Homelan.../November2009/
Bookmarks