BLUF: "...the recollection of the 'easier' operations of the 1990s, and of the principles derived from these experiences, is deeply flawed and that the requirements for effective third-party engagement in war-to-peace transitions will, whatever we call them, reproduce many of the challenges and requirements encountered in Afghanistan and Iraq. Problematically, these requirements and challenges tend to exceed the ambition and desire to intervene of most European nations."
The post is an offshoot of a recent article, Peace-building after Afghanistan: Between Promise and Peril, by Dr. Ucko that was published in Contemporary Security Policy.
Comments
http://www.scribd.com/doc/7258092/Luttwak-Give-War-a-Chance
Here's the real other side of the coin. If Afghanistan has taught us nothing, it's that the Crate and Barrel policy is flawed because we didn't brake it. Oft times when we think we must break something (civil wars, ethnic partition, etc) and then fix it, we assume our actions must have a positive long term effect.
Bosnia is hanging on to its Constitution by threads with the same ethnic fault lines at the breaking point, Kosovo will follow, Iraq is a near constant hairs-breadth from state collapse and civil war, do we think Afghanistan will turn out any better by our imposing foreign will and solutions to their internal problems?
Sometimes flames need to let themselves burn out. Hubris says we can solve their problems otherwise. When we do that, we artificially put a temporary lid on a simmering problem that will only conflagrate again as soon as we turn our backs.