Military Review English Edition May-June 2014 | Page 71
P E R S I S T E N T CO N F L I C T
staffs to streamline their planning processes. This
necessitates delegating nonmilitary tasks to the
agencies best suited to achieve objectives.
Resource limits. Limiting resources forces local
U.S. commanders to innovate to achieve their goals.
It helps partner nations understand they must plan
and execute the hard work of COIN operations
without receiving billions of dollars in aid.
Persistent conflict presents a vexing and difficult
problem. Americans are adverse to the idea of limited, never-ending wars of any kind. They prefer the
clean ending of a fight to the finish against enemies
seen in terms of absolute evil.32 However, DOD
and the U.S. government must respond to the lowlevel conflicts that threaten our interests around the
world. In an era of fiscal restraint, the United States
must be able to influence and shape future conflicts
and achieve success. Traditionally, choices were
limited. The United States could stand by while
partner nations engaged in their own persistent
conflicts, or deploy massive resources in order to
support our partners. There is a middle way. MR
NOTES
1. Uppsala Conflict Data Program, UCDP Conflict Encyclopedia (Uppsala University, Department of Peace and Conflict Research), .
2. Martin Van Crevald, The Transformation of War (New York: The Free Press,
1991), 207.
3. Michael Horowitz, The Diffusion of Military Power (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 2010).
4. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report for Congress, The Department of Defense Role in Foreign Assistance: Background, Major Issues, and Options for Congress, RL34639, Nina M. Serafino (Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office [GPO], 2008).
5. Department of Defense (DOD), Irregular Warfare: Countering Irregular
Threats: Joint Operating Concept, Version 2.0 (Washington, DC: GPO, 17 May
2010), 4, .
6. David Tucker, “Terrorism, Networks, and Strategy: Why the Conventional
Wisdom is Wrong,” Homeland Security Affairs, 4(2) (June 2008), .
7. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Colombia: Coca Cultivation
Survey 2009 (June 2010), .
8. CRS Report for Congress (updated), Abu Sayyaf: Target of Philippine-U.S.
Anti-Terrorism Cooperation, RL31265, Larry Niksch (Washington, DC: GPO, 2007).
9. CRS Report for Congress, Colombia: Conditions and U.S. Policy Options,
RL30330, Nina M. Serafino, (Washington, DC: GPO, 2001).
10. Chris Kraul, “Colombia President Announces Peace Talks With FARC
Rebels,” Los Angeles Times, 4 September 2012.
11. Thom Shanker, “U.S. Military Unit to Stay in Philippines,” New York Times,
21 August 2009.
12. RAND Corporation National Defense Research Institute report prepared for
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Victory Has A Thousand Fathers: Sources of
Success in Counterinsurgency, Christopher Paul, Colin P. Clarke, Beth Grill (Santa
Monica, CA: National Defense Research Institute, RAND Corporation, 2010).
13. Russell Weigley, The American Way of War (Bloomington: Indiana University
Press, 1977); and Thomas Mahnken, Technology and the American Way of War
since 1945 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008). Mahnken discusses the
pivotal changes following the World War II and the Korean Wars toward heavier
use of technology.
14. Alfred Valenzuela and Victor Rosello, “Expanding Roles and Missions on
the War on Drugs,” Military Review (March-April 2004).
MILITARY REVIEW
May-June 2014
15. Eric Larson and Bogdan Savych, American Support for Military Operations
(Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2005).
16. Richard Sobel, “Public Opinion about United States Intervention in El Salvador and Nicaragua,” The Public Opinion Quarterly 53(1) (Spring 1989): 114-28.
17. CRS Report for Congress, Colombia: Issues for Congress RL32250, June
Beittel (Washington, DC: GPO, 2011).
18. RAND Corporation National Defense Research Institute report prepared
for the Office of the Secretary of Defense, From Insurgency to Stability, Angel Rabasa, John Gordon IV, Peter Chalk, Audra K. Grant, K. Scott McMahon, Stephanie
Pezard, Caroline Reilly, David Ucko, S. Rebecca Zimmerman (Santa Monica, CA:
National Defense Research Institute, RAND Corporation, 2011), II: 242.
19. Donna Lynn A. Caparas, Participation of the Public and Victims for More
Fair and Effective Criminal Justice in the Philippines, ; and U.N. Development Program
Report, Assessment and Development Results: The Republic of the Philippines,
.
20. CRS Report for Congress, U.S. Military Operations in the Global War on
Terrorism: Afghanistan, Africa, the Philippines, and Colombia, RL32758, Andrew
Feickert (Washington, DC: GPO, 2005).
21. Kathleen Rhem, “U.S. Helping Colombian Military Cope with Drug War’s
Legacy,” American Forces Press Service, 29 November 2005.
22. Feickert.
23. CRS Report for Congress, The Department of Defense Role in Foreign
Assistance: Background, Major Issues, and Options for Congress.
24. DOD, Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request: Summary Justification, Robert M.
Gates (Washington, DC: GPO, May 2009), 1-13.
25. CRS Report for Congress, Security Assistance Reform: Section “1206”
Backround and Issues for Congress, RS22855, Nina M. Serafino (Washington,
DC: GPO, 2011), 7.
26. Andrew J. Bacevich et al., American Military Policy in Small Wars: The
Case of El Salvador (Washington, DC: Pergamon Press, 1988).
27. CRS Report for Congress, Colombia: Issues for Congress.
28. CRS Report for Congress, The Republic of the Philippines and U.S. Interests, RL33233, Thomas Lum (Washington, DC: GPO, 2012).
29. RAND Corporation, From Insurgency to Stability, 242.
30. DOD, Capstone Concept for Joint Operations: Joint Force 2020 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2012), 2.
31. Mahnken, Technology and the American Way of War since 1945.
69