A long look at strategy for the long war

Blackfive/Grim:

It has become common to say that there is no overarching strategy for the Long War. In the post below, I'd like to propose one. It joins together what I think are the best ideas out there, for creating a kind of world where:

* Terrorist groups are smaller and less dangerous

* Rogue states have more rather than less to fear

* Genocide and ethnic cleansing are rarer

* The enforcement of human rights is more certain.

All of this is possible without vastly increasing the size of the military, or invoking a draft....

...

There are three concepts to understand. The first is "information warfare." The second is David Kilcullen's concept of "Disaggregation," which the article asserts may be the grand strategy we need for the Long War, the equivalent of Containment in the Cold War. The third is consequences: the need for sticks as well as carrots.

...

There is much more. The post makes some important points in confronting the enemy's PR/information warfare campaign. Up until now, the US has not really been active in that battle space. Disaggregation is just a big word for divide and conquer. The enemy continues to lack cohesion on most of the fronts and particularly in Iraq. He is still too weak to mass forces. The concept of consequences seems to be omitted from much of the current COIN approach to defeating th enemy. It reads too much like winning by being nice to the enemy. I am sure that has some appeal to Democrats, but in the real world battle space it is a sign of weakness. It is a long piece, but he adds depth to his points.