Reply #5: Thanks, and thanks for all you have been writing here

[TayTay]

It has been wonderful.

I have been trying to keep up, with my limited knowledge and understanding, of the changes taking place in the US Defense Dept. The Services are undergoing a revolution in technology that is absolutely breathtaking in scope. SecDef Gates is actually leading that effort, in many ways, and in many ways it will be a good thing. But not in all ways.

This leads back to a discussion of what we are doing in Afghanistan and everywhere else to "fight" terrorism. Terrorism, as someone very wise once pointed out, is a tactic. You can't fight it, per se. You have to fight a level above that. That is where strategy comes in. Is there a level above strategy? Yes, defining the goal of the mission comes first. So, first we have to define the enemy. What is our goal? Who are we fighting? How are they fighting us? What weapons, personnel, equipment etc are they using? What are we countering that with and, perhaps more importantly, what do we perceive them to be doing or how are we anticipating their moves? What is the goal? Then we can talk about the strategies available to us and their advantages and drawbacks. Then tactics, then logistics.

We are on the cusp of changing perception of what warfare is and that it has a "place" in which it is conducted. Afghanistan is, for today or for this hour, a place where our enemies might be. But, that "place" is fluid and can change at "internet" speeds. So, how do we strategize for an enemy without boundaries? Is Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iraq etc really a battle ground in this forever war or a waystation? Is the kind of a war that envisions "place" already lost? Interesting thought that one.