IISS recommends precision and adaptability

[davidbfpo]

The IISS, London-based international "think tank", have published their annual Strategic Survey and the headline in one UK paper, The Daily Telegraph is:

Afghan strategy must be re-drawn says think tank

and a sub-title:

British troops should withdraw from Helmand in Afghanistan and a new strategy should be developed to contain al-Qaeda, a leading think tank has said.

The Strategic Survey press statement is:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...ess-statement/

On Afghanistan they conclude:

Strategic Survey 2010 does not seek to lay out a new comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan. It does however argue that for Western states to be pinned down militarily and psychologically in Afghanistan will not be in the service of their wider political and security interests. The challenge of Afghanistan must be viewed and addressed in proportion to the other threats to international security and the other requirements for foreign-policy investment. With economic, financial and diplomatic activity moving at such a pace and with such varied outcomes internationally, military operations in general have to be all the more carefully considered. Precision and adaptability will be essential watchwords. For heavy, large, military deployment, the longue durée will be seen as an attitude for other times, other centuries.

The Afghan campaign has involved not just mission creep but mission multiplication; narrowing the political-military engagement to core goals as described will allow for proper attention to be paid to other areas posing international terrorist risks, and indeed to other matters affecting international security.

Considering the strong trans-Atlantic ties of IISS this may come as a surprise to many IMHO.

The Daily Telegraph story - quite pithy in its quotations is:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...hink-tank.html

Like this:

It dismissed the counter-insurgency tactics pursued by General David Petraeus, the commander of Nato forces, as “too ambitious, too removed from the core security goals that need to be met, and too sapping of diplomatic and military energies needed both in the region and elsewhere.”

[jmm99]

with its "strong trans-Atlantic ties" ? I dunno and the question is somewhat rhetorical.

The question is what the US will do with its future. Will it continue to intervene in many areas (not all military) throughout the World; or will it adopt a more non-interventionist model (e.g., that of the traditional Guardians as described by Brian Linn in Echo of Battle) ?

I dunno the answer to that question either; but when I hear someone like Glenn Beck (as just one example) say he's tired of us being the "policeman of the World", I'd suspect that change is in the wind.

So, perhaps, IISS may be on the same track as future US policy. If so, a lot of other nations will be re-thinking their own national security programs.

Regards

Mike