Phillipines: Successful war against Islamic terrorists

The Philippines: America’s Other War On Terrorism(McClatchy Newspapers (mcclatchydc.com))…Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy Newspapers, Oct 22, 2008.

…On a Southeast Asian front that’s vital yet largely unfamiliar to most Americans, some 500 U.S. Special Operations Forces and their Filipino counterparts have been fighting a different, unconventional — and seemingly successful — war against Islamic terrorist groups with links to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida.

The lessons of this relatively low-budget effort could be invaluable as the next U.S. president assumes the task of fighting Islamic extremism with a federal Treasury drained by the nation’s economic woes and the Army and Marine Corps strained by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fighting Terrorism: Alternative Approach

2 British Antiterror Experts Say U.S. Takes Wrong Path, (New York Times)…Raymond Bonner, October 22, 2008,
Pg. 12

Two prominent British counterterrorism figures have criticized the United States for what they described as its overly militaristic approach to fighting terrorism and warned of a further erosion of civil liberties.

National Security Strategy Must Combine Diplomacy, Might And Strong Alliances
(Philadelphia Inquirer)…Rudy deLeon and Winny Chen, Sept 28, 2008.

…But our 44th president will have a unique opportunity and a clear duty to steer the United States toward new and progressive national-security priorities. That effort should begin with a new National Security Strategy – one that integrates a strong U.S. military posture with diplomacy, economic assistance, and cooperation with U.S. allies.

Bush Doctrine: Planned Change

Bush Foreign Policy. 5 Questions for Bill Sammon. Interview on a discussion that Bill Sammon had with President Bush. Townhall magazine, July 2008.

It’s one of the most significant things about the Bush presidency …. that he fundamentally changed U.S. foreign policy. We had, for decades, the twin strategies of containment and deterrence. It went very well … but when communism was replaced by terrorism as the global threat, those strategies were no longer operable … Bush had to come up with totally new strategies, and these, of course were preemption and democratization … I asked Bush, “How are we going to know if this democratization portion is ever going to work?” and he said, “Bill, you and I are going to be dead before anyone figures out whether it works, but if we don’t do something fundamentally different now about the way we deal with the Middle East, we’ll just continue to have the status quo.” … It’s very audacious, sweeping, ambitious thing that he started, and we don’t talk much about it.

Three general options on “planned change:” Maintain the status quo, incremental/evolutionary, or revolutionary/radical (fundamental change). The higher degree of change, the higher the risk.

Leadership at the strategic level considers the long-view but must also account for the near and mid-term view.

The “So-what?” is the importance of shaping the plan to support the vision. DoD’s Joint Universal Task List stratified at the strategic, operational and tactical levels, identify “tasks” (systems and processes) that are integrated within operational phases: Phase 0-Shape; Phase I-Deter; Phase II-Seize the Initiative; Phase III-Dominate (includes stages); Phase IV-Stabilize; and Phase V-Enable Civil Authority.

When fundamental change is going to be made, involve stakeholders that represent all elements of power to work through the near, mid, and long term planning through application of the strategic leadership paradigm and framework.