Hi Philip: Thanks for pointing out that report. Very interesting indeed.

LTC Steve Leonard:

I think I have exhausted my questions and I will certainly read FM 3-07 with heightened curiosity.

This discussion reminds of something Albert Einstein said re: technology and human understanding: "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity."

You posit the question of global peacebuilding and national security for which there is not an answer yet but for which there is, at the very least, an effort to advance human understanding and 'to help people help themselves' which is a phrase that I have heard often in the course of these discussions.

Thanks again,

My Best,

Philip

Nancy, LTG William Caldwell IV
and LTC Steve Leonard:

This is indeed a remarkable discussion and I thank you all for listening.

The peacebuilding models that I have observed have considered, as you have pointed out, the mutiple factors which effect people's health and prosperity. The Carter Center, in Uganda and Sudan helped with family reunification but also with the eradication of guinea worm with water filters and improved farming practices. Efforts in the Philippines were referred to by the Philippine military, as I recall, as an "arms to farms" initiative. On the competitive side of this equation is the apparent take over of poppy farming by the Taliban/AQ in Afghanistan. How do we prevent that activity when the opportunity presents itself? Does the Afghanistan government implement a farm registry in which the government contacts all farmers? Can poppies be converted to a medicinal crop via genetic engineering? More questions arise re: innovation e.g. if infrastructure is restored will it be energy-efficient? And, finally, if you look at Warren Strobel's post above on Al Qaeda and IT, it is suggested there that AQ is losing its competitive IT edge i.e. people are tuning into 'us' as well as AQ. And, we do not have to necessarily expand the "war of words" but we have the choice to expand a global peacebuilding initiative. If President elect Obama talks about the FM 3-07 efforts via You-Tube then don't people have a new choice as who and what to listen to?

Philip –
Thanks for your ongoing comments! They really help to get at the heart of this debate!
When developing this manual, the intent of the writing team was to cast as wide a net as possible since - with the possible exception of the security sector - the true experts typically reside outside the military. We sought out the time-tested practitioners within the development and humanitarian communities, the policy specialists within our government, and the critical thinkers focusing on workable solutions to what is essentially a fundamentally human problem. Those experts brought with them every imaginable model, system, framework, and guidebook in existence or in development. Our task was to meld all of that knowledge – what represented years of practical experience and theory – into 200 pages of actionable doctrine . . . something focused enough to have an immediate impact, yet knowing that there would still be some issues left to stir debate and discussion. Ultimately, what you see before you is the nexus of that experience and theory – derived from models such as the one you cite. The validation of the doctrine comes from the time-proven application of the principles upon which the manual is founded, the expertise drawn from a wide community of practitioners, both civilian and military.
Much of the text of the manual contends with the human condition – in the end, no intervention is complete unless it addresses the human dimension of conflict. That said, we didn’t specifically focus the book on any specific aspect of terrorism. Is countermotivation a valid counterterrorism measure? By itself, no; in concert with other measures that provide for the enduring social well-being of the individual and the community, yes. Whatever approach you choose has to provide lasting solutions that ensures lasting social cohesion.

FM 3-07 represents a serious Army effort to codify hard-won lessons of the last 25 years. Interventions in Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Haiti and the Balkans all embodied sizeable elements of stability operations. Current conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have taught our Army that winning the initial kinetic fight is necessary, but not sufficient to sustain lasting peace. Major combat operations merely set the stage for follow on operations. The new stability operations doctrine provides a roadmap that moves us towards an enduring peace.

The “Comprehensive Approach” inherent in this doctrine seeks to integrate the cooperative efforts of diverse government departments and agencies, as well as the efforts of our allies and partners, including private sector entities. Four basic tenets underlie the Comprehensive Approach: Accommodation, understanding, cooperation and purpose-based goals. These tenets work to achieve unity of effort among the diverse organizations conducting stability operations. The long-term intent is to position the United States to achieve stability and peace in a complex, ever changing international environment.

One of the obstacles to successful stability operations in the past has been the inability to communicate effectively among organizations that often speak different languages, both figuratively and literally. As antidote, FM 3-07 provides a lexicon of terms. Included are both the U.S. Agency for International Development’s principles for reconstruction and development and the guidelines for interacting with nongovernmental humanitarian agencies. The manual also details the governing principles for the Interagency Management System, in addition to offering an overview of the interagency conflict assessment framework.

Experience teaches us that weak and failing states often provide terrorist safe havens, destabilize neighboring states and encourage international crime. This stability operations doctrine is an important tool for conflict transformation—a process that reduces the motivations and means for conflict while simultaneously developing peaceful alternatives for coping with political and socioeconomic change.