by DAVID AXE
First we had the “Global War on Terror,” then “The Long War.” Today many senior U.S. leaders refer to the “Era of Persistent Conflict” to describe the predicted coming decades of long-term, low-intensity warfare. Now Paul McLeary, writing at Ares, questions the accuracy of the EPC term and points out Marine Corps General James Mattis’ alternative:
The term … always struck me as a little too “kinetic” for what military and civilian agencies will actually be doing on the ground in the majority of cases: providing economic assistance, training police and military units, providing health services, paving roads, etc. This isn’t to say that there won’t be combat … but to make it all about “persistent conflict” … just doesn’t do the job of fully capturing the range of things we’re now calling Overseas Contingency Operations.
That’s why a simple two-word phrase that the Joint Forces Command’s General James Mattis uttered yesterday is so important. During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Mattis chucked the old term and instead described an era of “consistent engagement” rather than “persistent conflict.” … [I]t takes some of the at-the-point-of-a-gun attitude out of the “era of persistent conflict” and implicitly gives more weight to the importance of the advisory and assistance missions that the United States and its allies will perform in the upcoming years.
(Photo: David Axe)
Related posts:
- U.S. Army Africa Boss: “The U.S. Army is Responding to the Challenge in Africa … “
- U.N. Dispatch: Former U.N. Afghanistan Head Calls for Political Solution to Conflict
- Columbia City Paper: Dark Trade: Aid-for-Bases, Failed Development Reveal the Dark Side of U.S. “Soft Power”
- Admiral James Stavridis: “Terrific News” in Afghanistan
- Kyle’s Links 4/29/09
- Train like You Fight: “Experts in the Application of Violence”
- U.S. Army in Africa: Dodging the Continent’s Worst Wars
Recent Comments