I fail to see the logic of this:

from Dayuhen

Originally Posted by jmm99
I see no "Made in USA" label on what I wrote:
Have we the capacity to make it elsewhere?

All this talk about creating, selecting, vetting, developing assumes capacity and will. If the host nation government had that capacity and will there wouldn't be an insurgency in the first place. The reason we're involved in these situations is that the capacity and/or will are not present in the host government... and the harsh reality is that in most cases we can neither fill that gap with our own capabilities (which would require us to govern the territory in question ourselves) or to force or persuade others to fill it.
The logic appears to be that:

1. If the incumbant government has an insurgency on its hands, it lacks the capabilities or will to implement the very modest suggestions by Steve and me on a local level.

2. Therefore, since the modest program cannot be implemented by the incumbant government, it can be implemented only by a foreign intervenor (e.g. US).

3. Therefore, the modest program will have a "Made in the USA" label, even though I clearly stated that the local program should be indigenous.

The fallacy lies in the initial premise.

What we are talking about, for a rural population complex of say 2500-5000 people, would be an armed civil affairs team of say 6-12 persons; and a very mobile platoon of patrolling Dobermans to preserve the military balance.

If the incumbant government cannot make that effort, it indeed is in deep trouble (regardless of how good it looks on paper at higher levels). In effect, it will be legislating into a void.

The factors of "creating, selecting, vetting, developing" are relative. None of them requires the resources of a modern industrial state. They should be done in accord with the local environment. Obviously, the local environment is capable of "creating, selecting, vetting, developing" - otherwise, the insurgency would not exist.

Merry Christmas

Mike