Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
As an aside, I hope you'll point out that DA is ruining SF for lasting harm... That's the "differ."

Seems to me that you are spinning a simplistic solution to a complex problem (and one that elides the reality of US domestic politics, as I've often said). I'm not at all sure there's as much Cold War thinking today as you seem to believe -- nor am I convinced there ever was such channeled thinking as you also seem to believe. My perceptions of that period apparently differ significantly from yours...

You have some really good ideas. Like Global Scout, I believe you tend to conflate many diverse things into one overarching mantra that is at least arguable. That obsession unfortunately obscures some of those good ideas.

Equally fair though is to point out that "containment" was very simple in concept, yet very complex and evolving in execution. Same applies to thories that I offer up as being more relevant to today's security environment.

Also equally fair is to note that most "good Cold Warriors" are skeptical of my theories. It shakes the foundation that their entire professional lives have been built upon a bit harder than they are comfortable with. Easier to just assume you are right and that others attack you in growing frequency for reasons completely disconnected from one's own actions. Personally, I know it is a pet peeve, so I may be biased, but I just hate victim mentalities that draw comfort through rationalizing the sources of major challenges off onto others. Responsibility and blame are very different things, and yes, I confess, that I do believe that it will only be once the US takes greater responsibility for the higher order effects of our actions that we will begin to get a better handle on our current security challenges.

I just can't join the group think that rationalizes such things away as "terrorism", or "Islamism" or "radicalization." I believe in all of those things, just not that they are all directed at us for things that we do not have to take responsibility for.

As to DA, there is plenty of that thinking going around. SF jumped in the pool, but it was crowded when they got in, and it will be crowded when they get out. Change is hard. Read LTC Petit's article in the current Special Warfare magazine on thinking COIN but executing FID. He has the SOTF here in the South now, and more than any other leader, other than perhaps MG Carter and GEN McChrystal himself, gets it.

Tribal engagement is certainly a growing area, but is defensive only, essentially a reinforcing of the self-governance that is the essence of governance in Afghanistan. I do get nervous at what I hear from senior leaders inside the beltway who appear to be grasping at this grassroots approach as a magic exit strategy; they misunderstand both the program and the nature of the conflict here. Its a good program, it is not the magic easy button that wins the day. Infanteer, who is a regular poster here is not SOF, but gets this very well and from all accounts is doing great things in a very tough neighborhood. He is, however, an exception. No the problem and the solution to this and every insurgency is at the top, not the bottom. If you build an "NFA" around the top, you are in for a long, hard road.

Threat-Centric, Population-Centric, Government Centric. Can make your head hurt. Truth is the lines blur considerably. One can't get at the populace without dealing with the threat. Typically (in good Cold Warrior fashion...though learned from our "Great Game" predecessors) whether one says they are focused on the threat or the populace, we end up way too often actually being focused on establishing and sustaining some particular government.

So, yes, this will remain my steady drumbeat: Legitimacy, Legitimacy, Legitimacy are the three most important things in COIN. If the top doesn't have it in the eyes of THAT populace, you will probably not be able to bail that leaky boat out fast enough to keep up.