This is coolbert:
Here is a man who feels that the counter-insurgency theory, methods, means, manner of combating, as originally espoused by the French theoreticians, and those after them also, are not totally relevant, perhaps not even relevant at all, when combating terrorists of the modern era .
From the wiki article on David:
"re·dux - - Brought back; returned."
"Kilcullen . . . questions the relevance of classical counterinsurgency theory to modern conflict . . . today’s insurgencies differ significantly from those of the 1960s. Insurgents may not be seeking to overthrow the state, may have no coherent strategy or may pursue a faith-based approach difficult to counter with traditional methods. There may be numerous competing insurgencies in one theatre, meaning that the counter-insurgent must control the overall environment rather than defeat a specific enemy. The actions of individuals and the propaganda effect of a subjective ‘single narrative’ may far outweigh practical progress, rendering counter-insurgency even more non-linear and unpredictable."
According to Kilcullen, modern insurgents may not [?]:
* Be seeking to overthrow the state.
* Have a coherent strategy.
* Numerous competing insurgencies in one theatre.
* Pursue a faith-based approach. [motivation is religious rather than national or ideological [communist]!
The modern terrorist of the Al Qaeda persuasion does not desire to overthrow the U.S. government and establish Islamic rule over North America? THEY DO SEEK TO TERRORIZE THE AMERICAN POPULACE AND BREAK THE WILL OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO RESIST FURTHER! SURRENDER, RETREAT ON THE WORLD-STAGE, PROSTRATE TO THE DEMANDS OF BIN LADEN, BUT NOT OVERTHROW!!
The various French theoreticians were correct for THEIR TIME? Kilcullen is correct for HIS TIME?