I'm back Tuesday to answer more questions, what would you like to discuss with me?

What's that you said? ...you want your account suspended? LOL. :-)

Aaron, great question. I think initial threats in Africa will mostly look like ISIS and even claim the connection. That said, while they will claim the Muslim legitimacy, most, like Boko Haram will have deeper roots more locally oriented. I think US SOF will have some involvement, but the biggest requirement will likely come from training and partnering relationships. Since 9/11 we've done things, but were always stretched resource-wise to provide more. My guess is that we'll need to develop far deeper relationships and expertise so what we do can be far more likely to make a lasting impact.

Sir, in response to your answer to Cpt Aaron Kletzing it intrigues me on a cost, benefit and risk basis as to what truly would best serve to eradicate the threats from Africa. I understand that that your reply would have to be done in the hypothetical and I would ask that we set aside any political and/or diplomatic components involved in coming to an answer, but, based on the time, monies and resources needed to develop the relationships needed and then to do the necessary training and the time that this would take wouldn’t the results be better, faster and less expensive to acquire the resources needed to eradicate this threat with solely our own logistics, weaponry and forces?

I've been in Africa for 7 years on US Govment contracts. My observation is that it is truly a complex and complicated political and strategic environment. I quick DIY strategy will not work, it would be like playing wack-a-mole, with belligerents rising here and there, some today, some tomorrow, some next year. The solution must come from the Africans, with our help as they accept it.

I would be ok with that...it worked in Germany and Japan...

With respect, I don't think this country has a good track record on showing its commitment to long term loyalty and support. Both the Iraqis and the Afghanis are justified in keeping other options open until they feel more secure about the US having their backs. I don't think this is a failure of military resolve but of domestic stamina and "stomach" for the open-ended commitment. (incidentally, I served briefly under you, Gen McChrystal, in the 2/504th- I was a medical officer assigned for the airborne insertion).

I agree that it does seem ironic that a nation with such a high degree of it's own domestic turmoil could be expected to be there for any other nation. But I agree with the General in that if we make a commitment to do something, we should be there to honor it. But as you say, it requires a certain amount of domestic stamina and "stomach" for it, which as long as we are in an upheaval of our own, those two attributes may be difficult to find.

I have to agree with the Sirs minus the General on this one. As one that endured several Iraq deployments from everything to where I was getting blown up and/or shot at every day, to include a TBI from my second deployment, to the intolerable pulling passage of lines as the CAV (my previous unit, who I actually earned my TBI with) pulled our equipment down south. While we were doing this, we were training guys that I KNEW, that we ALL knew would turn tail and run at the first sign of a fight. Then it happened. Just like we knew it would, all the blood we spilled, all the work we put into it, the day to day that my family deals with due to my TBI was for nothing. I am not necessarily advocating staying there in Afghanistan for years and years more. I am saying though, lets be honest about it, lets say yeah we are giving up on the country. Cut our losses, let our guys heal from their losses and move on.
I DO have to ask though Sir, are we SERIOUSLY considering putting more guys BACK in Iraq? I have done the A&A mission, it is impossible and futile. We need upper level management that is going to actually take that stand and say, "you wanted us out, we left, good luck." Am I too far off base here? I am about to go into recruiting and while I am combat arms and I LOVE combat, that would be one place that we do not need to go because they will tie our hands again to the point that we are useless. I have lived that life, it was horrible. Let us go, let us defend ourselves if that is the choice. I am just saying, if we are going to cut ties, lets cut them for good. Let's not sugar coat it though, Afghanistan is going to be lost too. Everyone knows it, it is simply just a matter of admitting it, we are not politically charged, we are trigger pullers by nature. So although, yes POTUS has the call, I am saying, let's be real about it.

Eric - a lot of people are thinking about this. I think the we'll continue to growth of SOF (at least relative to conventional forces), and SOF's role will remain critical. But I'd always advise people not to view SOF as a solution to wider problems - that was never the intent. SOF is great in very low intensity situations, but once the size of the effort grows, SOF must be only a part of the larger solution. Trying to make SOF the tool of 1,000 uses invites misuse and failure. I think they key is to make our conventional forces more adaptable and suitable to the inevitable complexity of future situations.

Thank you sir for coming back to Rally Point! I'm probably too late; I just found out about your return to answer more questions. I think this response has answered a question I posed the last round. The biggest issues i see is that we are not fighting forces from foreign governments--we have recently spending most of our time fighting rogue terrorist/guerrilla groups. I was wondering how effective conventional troops were in that situation and if we sent too many of them. While we must always be prepared for a more direct threat form a foreign government, I have always wondered what the ideal mix of SOFs and conventional forces to do the job of fighting these type of forces in the most effective way and get the best bang for the buck for the least cost of casualties. While I perceive that some changes are being made, I agree our conventional forces are definitely needing to be made very adaptable; in a manner of speaking, less"conventional" I just ordered your book on Kindle--look forward to reading it! Thank you sir!

Major; would it be more correct to say "The US military has been in the business of training foreign militaries to defend WHAT THE US GOVERNMENT HAS DEFINED AS their own national interests for a long time ..." and "... but we are not able to transfer to them the will to fight FOR WHAT THE US GOVERNMENT WANTS THEM TO FIGHT FOR."?

To be sure, its really hard. We seem to find ourselves with partners that suffer from corruption, weak governance, and uneven military leadership. But in my view, while we must try and do it better than we have in the past, there aren't many other choices. In every effort we're pursuing US strategic objectives as much as we are those of our partners, so doing nothing is often a poor option. I believe that as hard as it is that we need to continue to develop our ability to do this well - across the spectrum of governance (not just security). thanks for your question.

I believe FOOD is the greatest motivator, I believe people will fight harder for what is on their plate than for any other reason possible.

Has anyone tried to take food from a hungry dog, they will bite your hand off if you tried

I agree with the Major and the Colonel actually. We as America have always wanted to FIX everyone. We have wanted to make them better, Vietnam was a huge disaster in that, and yes Iraq and Afghanistan. I had the pleasure of Iraq and I do not regret my time fighting for my brothers. Make no mistake though, I did not fight for Iraq, or anything other than my brothers. I think that honestly everyone needs to see everything for what it is. We need to see where we fit into the realm of things. Yes a Colonel and a Major DO flirt more in those realms of decisions more in those Chiefs of Staffs positions (potentially) someone like me, we just look at the WARNO and wonder what in the HECK is the Colonel THINKING? Then we go off and do it. It was that way in Vietnam and then it was that way in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don't think really about the super high levels of management (POTUS, Chiefs of Staff etc) our wondering of what in the world are people thinking about stops at our BN and BDE CDRs. Just the nature of the beast. So, yeah the US does THINK that they are in the business of training and saving the world. Then the reason that they THINK that is because they are looking at how it BENEFITS them, it is not TRULY because they feel it is possible necessarily. IF they succeed then yeah a world full of countries that think the same way, would be much smoother, but even people that think alike still fight (look at siblings).

Brad - my thanks. In my view, ISIS is a serious threat - but a near- term one. What really worries me is that we will focus on ISIS and ignore the reality that the Mideast (and other parts of the Islamic world) are collapsing in terms of legitimate governance. I fear we could give into the temptation to bomb and raid ISIS to the point where we believe we're actually solving the root problem of instability in the region - and I fear we aren't. That requires a political framework and a long-term, patient strategy of engagement (and when necessary, the use of force) to help shape something durable.

Yes Sir,

Great answer. GEN Stanley McChrystal I also fear we are in the early phase of being so fixed on one threat, that we lose focus on a larger, more dangerous, threat to the point we fall victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia" [Vizzini Princess Bride] Which we have already blundered into and seem on the path to doing again.

Absolutely brilliant answer. Get back to the cop on the beat.

Do they still have beat cops CPL French? I just read recently that Obama agreed to stop providing police departments with surplus military equipment. Although I do think his decision was a black based decision in that this equipment was used in Ferguson and Cleveland.

The police department of this country do not need anti mine resistant vehicles that you all too often see PD's pull up to a perp in a building with a gun type situation. And then they parade through the street like ROBO cop. Its gotten out of hand and it needs to stop. If we continue down this path, we will be no better than some third world country or worse yet, like Nazi Germany.

Did you read the Generals comment. SFC Ferret?

After reading the article in Military.com on the divide between our military and civilian communities, (and you could add law enforcement to that equation as well) it seems that some of the new hard and soft technology (anything from armored vehicles techie uniforms to monitoring civilian communications) while adding some valuable tools can also alienate the civilian public as well. There are many challenges indeed!

GEN Stanley McChrystal I would like to reiterate this question.

I know that my unit did our small and unique part in Operation Iraqi Freedom. but I would hate for our efforts and the efforts of the US military from 2003-2014 to be in vain simply because ISIL has decided to stir the Middle Eastern sociopolitical pot.

This is an excellent question, SGT Brown and I sure hope the General will address it. Someone needs to.

Kevin, thanks- this is great. I think the US is going to have to have a permanent (at least for the foreseeable future) presence in the region. We've had it for decades in our fleet in the Persian Gulf and after 1991, with our limited forces in Kuwait, etc. I don't think the region would allow a big footprint like we had in Korea or Germany, but the US (and perhaps other Western nations) need to have a stabilizing capability in the region that all the nations view as credible.

Thank you for your response and service Sir.

Chris, in the near term it probably will, simply for financial reasons. The US Defense budget is huge, so the pressure to save will continue a bit longer. That said, as we see Defense expenditures in Europe continuing to go down (which will have to be reversed by reluctant governments), and expenditures in Asia rising, the US' capabilities will need to stay very robust. I'm hopeful that we'll use the budgetary pressures imposed on DoD to enact serious reforms in acquisition - and in reshaping the force for the 21st century. There's no doubt that we need a big, very strong military - but we can't afford to buy one that is big and strong for the wars of the last century - too much has changed.

GEN Stanley McChrystal, appreciate the response, thank you.

Great book - and an important story. In the new and future environment we literally have to do this. War won't be the business of just big-biceped men anymore. In areas from cyber to cultural engagement, we need every ounce of talent available. Diversity isn't key because its fair - its key because we need to different skills and viewpoints to be able to navigate the future battlefield.

Thank you Sir, I am Civil Affairs with a long history of Women Warriors I do hope that within your circles their are more like minded.

Interesting to note that over 2600 years ago Zun Tzu stated that a good leader makes use of all based on their abilities.