As I may have said once or twice before, since the end of World War II, our nation’s military has won almost all the battles while not really winning any wars. This suggests that it is high time to consider new strategies, even different tactics, techniques, and procedures. We are a nation at war whether the media and shielded portions of the country (almost all of us) admit it or not. Whatever we call this conflict [WWIII, IV, Global War on Terror/Islamo-Fascism, etc.] we are in it. And we need to decide to be “in it to win it”. This must be an “all in” commitment by our citizens and politicians, not just another forgotten police action fought by our soldiers and Marines.
That said, The US alone cannot win this war at a reasonable cost. We are going to have to develop non-traditional allies, particularly allies located along the fault lines of where civilizations clash. I originally described this program as active in Latin America and/or the Middle East. Those are still major areas of concern. As new perspectives, alliances, concerns and priorities have emerged – and old ones reasserted themselves – a slightly different route to the objective may prove useful.
Let’s look at this challenge in terms of the “5 W’s”: “When?” “Who?” “What?” “Where?” and “Why?”, plus an “H” (for Home Front) Answering the first of these is, sadly, with 20/20 hindsight: “Yesterday”. Bureaucracies being what they are, ASAP will have to do. “Who?” may surprise some of you. The old picture of the foreign area officers (FAOs) as brainy guys/gals in cubicles, wearing ear-buds that fill their heads with [insert any foreign language here], as they write furiously and think even faster – speaking English to each other at lunch – has got to go. Instead, say hello to the new kids on the block: the WP FAOs.
These next-gen “WP” FAOs are organized within each partner nation similarly to an infantry platoon reinforced. Platoon commander (O-5), platoon sergeant (E-8), corpsman, radio telephone operator (RTOs), squad leaders (O-4), fire team leaders (O-3), and grunts (enlisted advisers). The total number of individuals deployed in WP units will be country and situational dependent, but assume a cadre of 20-30 deploying in-country for 7-13 months with the reinforcements being individuals lacking language and cultural expertise but bringing specific skill sets to bear in particular places for specific periods of time.
These FAOs may be from any branch of service as long as they are willing to eat and sleep with the rubes, that is – locals – that they are working with, and possess street smarts, people skills, and “feel” for the environment versus an advanced degree in political science. Their training is focused on language (minimum Defense Language Proficiency Test score of 3/2+), history, partner nation military and paramilitary organization and leadership, geography, demography, economics, culture and religion, political and foreign affairs, Country Team structure, Foreign Internal Defense, and COIN [counter-insurgency] operations.
Now, we’ve arrived at our next question: What? The mission is paramilitary by design. However, The DOD has to do this because State, CIA, DEA, USAID, etc., don’t have – and will not ever have – the institutional knowledge and skill sets required to train and equip the Partner Nations to conduct Foreign Internal Defense (FID) or even give reliable advice to the DOD on issues of FID or national defense. Our WP advisers will work in the field with Partner Nation (PN) military and/or paramilitary units and focus on improving their ability to sustain themselves in the field. WP’s primary focus is on developing PN’s intel, supply, maintenance, and logistics capabilities, including measures to prevent Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs) from engaging in illegal fund raising and/or transferring of funds. These tasks illustrate the “move” and “communicate” portions of the “Move. Shoot. Communicate.” dictum. Special Forces have got the shooting covered. Which brings us to: “Where?”
When I mentioned alternate routes to the objective, I had in mind a WP pilot program to be fielded in Mexico. By beta-testing in Mexico, we begin in a relatively benign environment; stop and then reverse the death spiral in which Mexico finds herself, while proving the concept with the shortest of possible communication and supply lines. Additional benefits of starting in Mexico is that it reduces the program’s vulnerability to “war on Islam” attacks, and has a slightly better chance of winning the support inevitably required from the Department of State and CIA. Those agencies’ roles are indispensable in getting foreign governments to accept the program, supporting force protection measures, and identifying the organizations and their leaders that need to be taken down. The Mexican pilot program is to be the first and perhaps the longest running of these programs. The threat of the Mexican situation to our nation has been downplayed for far too long. Advocating for a program such as this may force politicians to address our responsibility in the chaos occurring in Mexico and support the fix. In helping Mexico, we help ourselves; and, test the practicality of the Winning the Peace program before fielding this in Africa and/or Asia. (Could a Europe increasingly-unrecognizable to many of her citizens benefit from this strategic tool, with similar parameters, as well?)
You may be thinking, “Great, ST, but you haven’t mentioned the home front.” Glad you asked! Energy-independence for the US is pivotal for many reasons. Not least of which is to disrupt the transfer of funds, via the purchase of petroleum products, to the Salifists that are killing us. Politicians need to explain to the environmentalists that we can longer afford to buy billions of dollars worth of oil and natural gas products from countries that are financial centers funding terrorists’ groups. We should increase diversification of fuels, sources of supply, and transit routes.
Cannot an argument be made that the “house of war” is at particular risk only if and when the “house of peace” is financially prosperous? If that is the case, then shouldn’t our federal government’s strategy be to starve the Islamic supremacists of petrodollars? Delightful side effects might be even greater instability in Muslim nations if their rulers were to find themselves unable to maintain social tranquility by means of free bread and circuses for the masses.
Could we not win the peace by becoming the world’s greatest exporter of energy – of any and all types? What do we have to lose? Energy independence should be our strategic goal and would also inhibit Russia’s ability to export mischief. If our nation’s leaders could actually think outside of the box and play hardball too, then we could probably also slap China back into line at the same time. Win – Win – Win.
As to “Why?” Although we’re on more of a “guns and butter” or “new normal” footing than I’d like to see right now, we have a window of opportunity with the current administration that needs to be exploited and activated. I am particularly hopeful about the ability of the leadership at DOD, DOS, and NSC to think unconventionally, to reinvigorate prior alliances, and conduct other relationships on terms more beneficial to our interests. In light of this change from a reactive to a proactive posture at home and overseas, I see implementation of my ‘Winning the Peace” [WP] program of cultural/linguistic/civil affairs engagement from the bottom up – and from the inside out – as a way to begin our return to “life before 9/11” – and so truly honor the sacrifices of the fallen.
ST UnWoked & UnVaxxed! 
It’ll be good to read through these and talk about them some more, ST….The whole project just drips with sanity, practicality, and versatility. How do we get it up and running somewhere?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I briefed a version of this to Gen Neller when he was my Commanding General. He liked it – a lot. He has standing and credentials as a former Commandant of the Marine Corps.
Then I retired and got busy deflowering the youth of the world in the mud because, you know, loser.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Winning The Peace goes way over most people’s heads: It goes over my head, but some people just can’t admit that they don’t know everything. We can’t all be brain surgeons, we can’t all be rocket scientists, and we can’t all be military experts. There is no shame in not being a brain surgeon, a rocket scientist or a military expert, so why are some people (mostly men, seems like) so quick to dismiss ideas that they know nothing about?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Because, you know, incels.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, ah, ah…no negativity. I really enjoyed hearing CMC Neller discuss anything and everything; he knew quality when he saw it, amigo.
LikeLiked by 1 person
There are bad actors out there who would have you to believe that my concept for Winning the Peace is Nation-Building which everyone now knows never works so can be dismissed out of hand. No need to worry your pretty little head with bothering to read it.
I think in reality most of them do not have enough education and real-world experience to understand it.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What I don’t get is why they don’t want you to know about this defense strategy of mine. Especially considering that most of them are (chicken) Hawks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What IS nation-building?
A 2003 study by James Dobbins and others for the RAND Corporation defines nation-building as “the use of armed force in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin an enduring transition to democracy.”[3] Comparing seven historical cases: Germany, Japan, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, “in which American military power has been used in the aftermath of a conflict to underpin democratization elsewhere around the world since World War II,” they review the lessons learned. This definition of nation-building is substantially different than those which see nation-building as the province of people within a nation. The definition centers around the building of democratic processes, but many argue that the use of the military to bring about democracy may be inherently contradictory. Whether nation-building can be imposed from outside is one of the central questions in this field, and whether that can be done by the military is a further part of the question.
What is a nation?
To understand the concept of nation-building, one needs to have some definition of what a nation is. Early conceptions of nation defined it as a group or race of people who shared history, traditions, and culture, sometimes religion, and usually language. Thus the United Kingdom comprises four nations, the English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. The people of a nation generally share a common national identity, and part of nation-building is the building of that common identity. Some distinguish between an ethnic nation, based in (the social construction of) race or ethnicity, and a civic nation, based in common identity and loyalty to a set of political ideas and institutions, and the linkage of citizenship to nationality.
Today the word nation is often used synonymously with state, as in the United Nations. But a state is more properly the governmental apparatus by which a nation rules itself. Max Weber provided the classic definition of the state:
Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that “territory” is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or to individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it.
In approaching the question of nation-building, and in particular its relationship to state-building, it is important to keep in mind that this definition specifies the legitimate use of force.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The above is from this article:
https://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/nation_building/;
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nation-building, nah….Nation-claiming/reclaiming, big-time. Most of the places you’ve suggested implementing it are ‘at risk’ spots that have previously-instituted governmental structures which need revival. You’re not talking about starting from scratch, right? That could take half a century – and still not succeed.
How was Great Britain able to export its governance model so widely? And have it take root so effectively?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Ah, Hopkirk comes to mind: security forces/“private armies” attached to the trading companies, yes? Legitimate use of force…..But, you’re talking about an interpersonal, integral element that isn’t the more-often-than-not traditional adversarial model, imposed from above, right?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am not understand your ‘Hopkirk’ comment/ questions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oops, Hopkirk’s Great Game, etc. introduced me to the semi-military forces attached to the trading companies, in the sub-continent. This sounds like “legitimate force” to me….It also seems a lot more “top-down” than the WP-FAOs do.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And, the WP-FAOs are more likely to succeed, I think, because they are willing to enter into the reality on the ground, unlike those who either don’t wanna get their uniforms dirty, or see every local in a “foreign” environment as a threat, or expendable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I better call it a night, hermano. Thanks for a great start to the new year! I’ll be back later. Have a great afternoon; g’night to everybody Stateside. Peace be in and with us all. Chao for now….
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wonder if chicken-Hawk is scared that I am going to get rich by ‘selling’ this radical and revolutionary concept for national defense/ security to State?
How it must pain him to imagine how wildly successful I have been and continue to be, and not only with the womenfolk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It well may be….
LikeLiked by 2 people
Beta test in Mexico for obvious reasons then the first teams could deploy to southern Thailand. The USMC can re-activate me and I’ll run the whole thing in my spare time and/ or when I am not committing statutory rape.
LikeLiked by 2 people
DeNanda if someone brings a better mousetrap to me and I need to kill mice, then I would not be terribly concerned about whether or not he was a lowlife. Just as if one is concerned about national defense he should not get too wrapped about the axle over the character flaws of the person trying to explain the details of a concept that may just be a better way.
Alas, I would be very wrong in thinking this way.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You are not wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Womenfolk are not permitted to engage in discussions about national defense. They are just too goshdarned delicate for these masculine point of view discussions.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Some of those womenfolk are out there supporting, fighting and dying, too. So,….Not.
LikeLiked by 1 person