The senior U.S. officer in Logar, Army Lt. Col. Thomas Gukeisen, tells Voice of America that he does not have enough soldiers to control all of the province, even with the help of the Afghan National Army (ANA) and the Afghan National Police (ANP). Instead, he uses the troops that he has to occupy the most cooperative villages, and turn them into examples for neighboring villages to follow. The troops provide a security bubble for reconstruction projects in the targeted communities. "Outside of that bubble, you create dislocated envy," said Colonel Gukeisen. "You have people outside - the elders and children - say well how come my school wasn't fixed. For instance, one village, Shamazar, came forward and said we want this. We said, 'Well, you've had 18 IEDs in your village and outside your village. We know you know who's doing it. You're not telling us.'" The idea is for the Afghan communities to police themselves, in order to qualify for reconstruction projects. The aim is to extend security beyond the U.S.-controlled villages. One of Colonel Gukeisen's platoons met recently with farmers in Ibed. "We're conducting agricultural and veterinary surveys for locals in the village of Ibed, outside the security bubble, in hopes of enticing some farmers to come to the district center - and, if they do, it will give us a chance to show that these are services that ourselves in conjunction with the ANA can provide to them. Hopefully we can turn them into a pro-coalition village," explained Army 1st Lieutenant Sean Mahard.
They called their approach, the "ink-spot" strategy.
THE CHART ON HOW ALL THIS FITS TOGETHER, ALL AT ONCE.
I'd like to see a video on this with detailed audio.
Thomas P.M. Barnett's Take on Obama's strategy,
But in practical terms, his plan is not, because it won't really secure Afghanistan — given our multiple bankruptcies, we can't afford to. Can I offer a better way out? I can only offer a frightening array of potential counterparties to the proposed settlement...
...our enemies in Afghanistan aren't backed up by an opposing superpower. Indeed, the rising great powers of the region (China, India, Turkey, Russia, Iran) all have strong vested interests in our success.
The reason why Obama neglects to mention any regional interests Pakistan's? Admitting the larger logic of regionalization would make too painfully obvious the nature of our current strategic bankruptcy. Because it would suggest that the only "victory" to be found would be "won" by those neighboring powers who did nothing to stabilize the situation. In other words, their "treasure" and our "blood."( The flip side of Tom's argument is that China is buying
USA debt paper, bonds, and in fact is paying for part of this
I think I got all sides of this Strategy covered,
Running it through our Paradigm Intel engine .
Report later on results.