10 years, 7 months ago
Using e-mail, Google Analytics and comment information, I can tell that many of my repeat readers are professional military. Many of my posts are rather simple in import and depth from time to time, and I suspect that some of my readers wonder, “Does he not understand that there is a more nuanced debate over force projection than he has given credit?”
Now, let me post a challenge to my readers. If I am proven wrong, I will announce it in a post specifically showing my error, and if the reader wants, I will put his identity along with the post so that he can brag about showing this rookie and amateur a thing or two (and if the reader wants to stay anomymous, that’s okay too).
Here is the challenge. I posted recently on Small Wars. From the Small Wars Manual, can anyone give me anything even roughly analagous to the following:
“Killing an enemy combatant, especially a popular or loved one, will only cause the emboldening and empowering of his colleagues and the increase in the size of the enemy forces. Therefore, it is better in certain circumstances to allow the enemy to shoot at you without returning fire.”
That’s the challenge for those of you who favor “minimum” force projection. Go find such a set of statements in the Small Wars Manual.
To continue the discussion, let’s use Pakistan as a starting example. Reuters is reporting that:
QUETTA, Pakistan – Hundreds of rioters angered by the killing of a rebel tribal leader rampaged through a southwestern Pakistani city Sunday, burning dozens of shops, banks and police vehicles.
Police arrested hundreds on the second day of violent protests against the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti, 79, in a raid on his mountain hideout.
An alliance of four Baluch nationalist groups announced a 15-day mourning period over Bugti’s death and vowed to continue protests throughout the region. A strike of businesses and public transportation was planned for Monday.
“The government has pushed Baluchistan into a never-ending war,