Summer 2008

It's all well and good to make statements about what will happen in the future. There is no way to predetermine what kind of warfare will emerge in what country and by whom. I think we can only look at what's happening right now, and make adjustments as we go along. There is no question that violence is slowing down in Iraq. But there is also no question that violence is increasing in Afghanistan. That says to me that we are slowing down the attacks in Iraq and Al queda is moving its forces to a less well defended country. As soon as we become complacent and say "Iraq" is settled, and leave, the terrorists will rush right back. They will keep us hopping for many years, touching down whereever we let down our guard.

Posted by Kathleen | August 4, 2008 7:07:38 PM EDT

This is not an either-or proposition with respect to counterinsurgency vs. conventional warfighting capabilities. Our nation is engaged today -- an for the foreseeable future -- against an enemy intent on limiting American access and influence throughout the world. Our nation is embarking on a journey into an uncertain future that threatens to expand with increased global competition for shrinking natural resources, teeming urban populations with rising popular expectations and a global economy struggling to meet the mounting demands from emerging markets and third world countries. This is a conflict unlike any other in American history, where military forces operate among the people of the world who will decide the major battles and engagements. Despite the local or regional origins of many conflicts, left unchecked, they risk conflagration into wider confrontations with global implications that will threaten America’s vital national interests and the security of our homeland. And we therefore cannot rule out the possibility of state-on-state conventional conflicts for which our armed forces have been so well prepared – but which can be catastrophic to our national survival if the requisite military skills are permitted to atrophy or dissipate.

Posted by Zachary Miller | September 3, 2008 4:19:19 PM EDT

An excellent and informative article. Re the comments: At most 10% of the insurgency were al-Qaeda. The rest were native Iraqis who preferred not to be occupied. By adopting the Petresues doctrine, this would be to committ the U.S. to fighting wars of imperialist occupation, which the professional military prefers to avoid.

Posted by Ken Morgan | September 23, 2008 6:45:31 PM EDT