GovernmentExecutive.com

COMMENTS

• I agree with the report. The nebulous nature of the insurgent infrastructure means it cannot be infiltrated. Without infiltration you cannot learn the nature and objectives of the organization. This is an enemy that cannot be defeated because they can stop whenever they want and rest recuperate plan and execute with any worry they will be found out. That is why you must change the world they operate in so that they're behaviors can be more observable. If insurgents can be successfully prosecuting in the field the civilian can see that the guerrillas are not invisible and can be caught & punished. Changing the world the insurgents operate in is where the money comes in. RAND's explanation that we must make this investment to insure that our country isn't vaporized is quite simple to understand. What possible argument could be made to that. I think the biggest mistake our political leaders made is to allow a defeated country to think and to have control of it's own destiny. As we as a nation percive the threat here then as occupiers we should conduct our operations to neutralize any and all threats in that theater. Our projection of power must be more efficient and effective. We must utilize our military effectively so that insurgents are made to pass through in order to get from one point to the other. A defeated nation is on our time. Every citizen of a defeated country should have been given a biometric inspection and recorded. That way over time people can be identified and tracked. This may sound familiar but it was a standard that worked and was necessary. A defeated nation must work hard to regain its freedom. It wins its freedom back by its cooperation with the occupying nation. It is the occupying nation who decides that the threat in-country is eliminate and the country can be trusted to keep threats down and trusted to do so. Finally, the recommendation by RAND does not say what should be known and understood. We cannot leave. The threat is real and known and has not been neutralized. These countries cannot be trusted to safeguard America. We must maintain the pressure on the surface there to insure the Safety of America. Daryl Bond Posted June 16, 2008 11:50 AM
• Rand's findings are right on. However, a critical issue remains in determining how to best counter the current threat from Islamic extremists --before we start to pour huge amounts of money (i.e., tens of billions)in that direction. Clearly soft power is the general direction we need to go in, so more language and cultural education and regional studies and 'special forces' approaches to bolstering indigenous forces are all appropriate and timely. However, it is not clear to me that the military is the best place to center this effort, because the US military has not been --and is not now--really about soft power. And our military cultural-bureacratic forces would almost certainly work mightily against a serious bolstering of soft power approaches, probably by trying to eventually co-opt it into under DOD's aegis. Perhaps an elite new corps of anti-insurgent/counter-terrorism professionals could be developed who would dedicate their entire careers to the effort, a recognition of the problems of putting a 23 year old enlisted person on intelligence tasks with enough sticking power, personal focus over time and profesional savvy to do the job effectively. Oh, where should such a civilian counter-terroristcorps be properly placed? Ray Picquet Posted February 25, 2008 10:24 AM