Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
Actually the Spanish combined it with a very effective genocide program and it didn't do them much good....

If we're going to go picking into history for examples, we also need to be careful to retain the context and framework of each situation and solution. The Frontier is perhaps best understood as a poorly-planned occupation and conquest with elements of what we'd now consider counter-insurgency thrown in for good measure. It was an operation that for the most part only got half-hearted support and minimal funding from the central government, and was often agitated by what might now be considered "non-state actors" on all sides of the issue. It also contains any number of examples about how operational templating and "one size fits all" planning can lead to less than optimal outcomes.

I think it's more important to have a good understanding of the issues (including restrictions) that face your particular situation and have the knowledge and tools to be able to create a plan based on the specifics of your situation. Properly informed adaptive leadership and planning will be more successful than all the perfect models in the world poorly applied.
However, "CHB" remains a threat-centric approach; coupled with the belief that once once clears out the threat, if they build effective government infrastructure and process they will "win."

All situations being unique, of course, for the situation the US currently finds itself in (mired in the insurgencies of two countries that we imposed ourselves into; and also targeted by the insurgencies of several other countries that we consider as allies, but who's populaces see us a protector of governments that they are dissatisfied with).

I suggest that instead of targeting the insurgent (there will always be insurgencies all over the world, and no amount of engagement will change that fact), that instead we target the perception that we stand as an obstacle between populaces and their respective governments.

A shift of focus.

This does not mean cut and run, it means that if we are so set that we have national interests in these places that demand our presence, lets use our influence to enable a relatively controlled evolution of these governments and not simply help them keep their populaces in check.

Many tend to focus on the ideology applied to rally the people; or the role of organizations like AQ to leverage these nationalist movements and miss the real underlying issues. These are distractors and we focus on them to our peril. We need to set our fears aside, and adjust our approach to foreign policy to enable relatively peaceful pursuit of self-determined governance. It won't all be what we would like to see, but it won't be half as scary as the fear mongers out there make it out to be either.

And we'll be able to look in the mirror when we shave in the morning to boot.