[QUOTE="K0PaSk4"][QUOTE="Shad0ki11"]Indeed, first it was GWOT (Global War On Terror). Then for a time it became SAVE (Strategy Against Violent Extremism). Later on, it became CONTEST (Counter Terrorism Strategy) with the 4 P's of "Prevent, Pursue, Protect and Prepare. [QUOTE="mixmax5"]
I really don't agree with it and I hardly think we are "winning".
jetpower3
The U.S and its allies wont be winning anything like this, because the real issue is that of matching satellite-based and air launched technology of war should be calibrated with the ground-level anthropology challenge of graduated winning hearts and minds. GWOT, SAVE and OCO can only succeed if these ground level social, economic and cultural issues are resolved at the scope and speed willingly undertaken by local leaders. To simply put we need more chalk on the ground in order ton win this "war" But how far does U.S & its allies willing to go to win this "war"?By more "chalk", do you mean more projects related to education and development? Because that's one thing Afghanistan in particular does not have very much of at all. In fact, it's more than just education that's needed. After 30 years of war, you've had an entire generation that's grown up only knowing war, and how to fight. That sounds like a prime, one way ticket to near endless conflict. An entirely new outlook for this is necessary.
We should all know by now that guerrilla warfare, insurgencies, or just asymmetrical warfare in general is one of the most difficult to combat. Unlike regular, symmetrical warfare, there is no tangible army to conquer and dominate in the field. No matter what kind of success you have in any one engagement, more will just keep coming unless you isolate their population and recruitment base. The hearts and minds approach is one of the methods to doing so, and it can certainly be effective, but the cunning ability of insurgents is not to be underestimated. Even if the U.S. and its allies make a point to really show the people of Afghanistan that they are committed to their development and eventually "prosperity" as a nation, the insurgents can easily make an example both physically and psychologically not to deal with them (I'm always taken back to the monologue by Marlon Brando in Apocalypse Now about the Viet Cong chopping off inoculated arms of villagers). Violence and war on its own will be just as bad, leading to more and more escalation.
The optimal seems to be using the two in tandem, as well as discouraging the existing insurgents from fighting, or, if you're lucky, maybe even defecting. It's not so easy when their motive is so indoctrinated into them after years of fighting for a particular cause, but it can sure be worth a try. Just my two cents.
My point exactly . We need more people on the ground in order to launch effective Territorial Capacity Buiding (TCB) programs. Its twin track schemes provide governance capacity building for village, local and township management as well as supporting economic development delivery systems. Reinforcing governance capacity and providing economic support (repair of irrigation canals, bridges, rehabilitating houses of worship, teaching arithmetic and maybe, english in isolated areas) create a positive environment of ?nation-building? and ?nation replenishing? at the grass roots level. Yes chance of violence repercussion does exists as you mentioned above, but its a risk that have to be taken. They (U.S) did tried to take less risky way by addressing the problem right to ?cultural roots of the problem? in a particular country in the Middle East or South Asia. Kinetic-based counter-terrorist actions, including the use of special forces and UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) operated from Nevada often inadvertently targeted innocent civilians suspected of being involved in terrorist acts in the Middle East and Afghanistan. But it was proven largely ineffective, if anything it only providing fuel for Al-Qaida's "Christian West vs Muslim East" propaganda. 
Log in to comment