At the risk of challenging minor nuances of Ken's statements, I for one, appreciate the clarity of Bob's uses of actual words with definable and stated meanings---if only just as a fixed panel to shoot at.
The problem with the words, as everybody seems to drive to is that they are nothing more than conceptual constructs, seldom the real and complete definition of any actual thing or event.
My Commager-based history of the US Civil War is quite a bit more driven by the nuances of geomorphology (Fast rivers in the North with small farm holdings) vs. large flat plains and slow rivers in the south, all underscoring the urban/industrial vs. slave/plantation cultural and economic differentiation). Repudiation of debt to those scurillous London money lenders was a really big deal to the Virginia Planters in the Revolution. Nothing is just about one thing, but aggregations of common interests under a clear banner. Henry Ford loved the totalitarian aspects of Nazism, but because it ste well with an industrial hegemonist's mindset and goals.
Bob's challenge of a "civil war" in Iraq is really a good point. All these folks at the national level are really just jockeying for who gets the seat, not any big revolutionary concept. The King is dead, long live the (my) King.
It gets way complicated in Afghanistan when we start mixing up concepts of central government, which nobody but crooks ever stood for. The old "King" was consultative to regions, tribes and leaders, not federal or federalist.
In the well-described history, there is abundant reason for lots of folks to oppose lots of things (as they do) including opposing things they support as best of very bad options (Taliban vs. having my village blown up for playing with the Americans).
How did COIN transmute into Clear-Hold-Nag, as increasingly seems to be the definition evolved over the past two months. We nag our local clients to start to confront the Taliban, but with no paramount duty to arm or secure them (boom, boom). When key allied local leaders are threatened, we can't secure or protect them. Where is this going? Isn't it still a war, where some folks are in armed resistance to both us and Karzai?
Are we nagging these people to place themselves and their families at substantial risks over our silly ideas? Wasn't the last definition of COIN to "protect the population?" Doesn't that imply a duty and obligation to safeguard and protect those we nag?
Originally Posted by Steve the Planner
Bookmarks