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!