This is the primary problem when one defines the problems between a government and its populace in terms of "threats" and then applies a military solution to resolve them. It leads to an excessive focus on the aspects of the "threat" that are identifiable. The organizations as a whole are simply members of the populace, so lack any special identification. But such organizations typically apply some framework of shared ideological beliefs, so we can focus on that. Such organizations also have leaders, so we can focus on them.

It is no wonder that in military headquarters, where endless daily briefings pound like a drumbeat on ideology and the names and faces of a handful of guys, that such organizations might come to convince themselves that if they could just make the ideology go away, if they could just get a red slash through some of those faces and names, that they would somehow be making progress.

The obsessive pursuit of such progress leads to growing frustrations with the obstacles to being able to bring to bear the full power and capabilities possessed by the military to achieve those purposes.

Things like the laws of the intervening country, the country where these organizations live and operate, and of the international community often get in the way of effectiveness.

Respect for the sovereignty of the country where these organizations live and operate is a major obstacle to effectiveness.

Tailoring the actions of any intervening country actions so as to not degrade the legitimacy of the government and security forces of the country where these organizations live and operate is a major obstacle to effectiveness.

But for the irritating self-imposed obstacles of concepts like "justice" "sovereignty" and "legitimacy" military forces could be far more effective in getting after the identifiable military aspects of such problems. At getting after the "threat."

In Afghanistan and Iraq the solution was easy. Call it a war, remove the host nation government, and 'bingo'! No more messy obstacles to effectiveness. What we learned, however, or should have learned, is that such efforts to improve "effectiveness" of military operations designed to defeat the symptomatic "threat" component of such problems between populaces and governments is more often than not antithetical to getting to an understanding and resolution of the true issues of the matter.

The great strength of the operations conducted with the government of the Philippines was that we constrained ourselves, that we sacrificed "effectiveness" in a recognition that when working with a friendly government one cannot simply ignore the law or their sovereignty, or act is such away as to call in question in the eyes of the populace the legitimacy of their own government. But in military headquarters those same targetable factors of leadership and ideology get briefed with the same frequency, constantly feeding feelings of frustration with those pesky obstacles to "effectiveness."

Don't blame the military for being the military and doing what militaries do. These are civil problems demanding civil solutions. Governments long used to not having to compromise on longstanding grievances with important, minority (or suppressed majorities in many cases, such as Bahrain) populaces, are going to have to realize that simply throwing these problems to the military to resolve can only restore suppression of the symptoms at best.

I don't know what happened in the Philippines. I know the Philippine security forces have the capacity to execute such an operation when supported by US forces within the rules, laws and agreements that have long defined and constrained that operation. I also appreciate the frustration of senior leaders with self-imposed obstacles to effectiveness.

Effectiveness is the enemy of true success in these types of situations. Look at night raids in Afghanistan. A masterpiece of effectiveness, yet every override of justice, sovereignty and legitimacy put in place to achieve that effectiveness serves to strengthen the Taliban movement across the populace, even as effective operations add to the score card virtually every night.

Effectiveness is the enemy of success. That is one frustrating concept to wrap your brain around as a military tasked with solving a problem. A problem that was never really a military problem to begin with. Currently the US Army is very focused on "the lessons learned of the past 10 years." Mostly, so far as I can tell, the focus is on how to be "more effective." I believe it is time to shift the focus of that study, of that conversation, to one of "how do we be more successful." But first we will need to redefine our measures of success.