A must read - now available for pre-order: The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One by Dr. David Kilcullen.

From the product description - David Kilcullen is one of the world's most influential experts on counterinsurgency and modern warfare. A Senior Counterinsurgency Advisor to General David Petraeus in Iraq, his vision of war dramatically influenced America's decision to rethink its military strategy in Iraq and implement "the surge."

Now, in The Accidental Guerrilla, Kilcullen provides a remarkably fresh perspective on the War on Terror. Kilcullen takes us "on the ground" to uncover the face of modern warfare, illuminating both the big global war (the "War on Terrorism") and its relation to the associated "small wars" across the globe: Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Chechnya, Pakistan and North Africa. Kilcullen sees today's conflicts as a complex pairing of contrasting trends: local social networks and worldwide movements; traditional and postmodern culture; local insurgencies seeking autonomy and a broader pan-Islamic campaign. He warns that America's actions in the war on terrorism have tended to conflate these trends, blurring the distinction between local and global struggles and thus enormously complicating our challenges. Indeed, the US had done a poor job of applying different tactics to these very different situations, continually misidentifying insurgents with limited aims and legitimate grievances (whom he calls "accidental guerrillas") as part of a coordinated worldwide terror network. We must learn how to disentangle these strands, develop strategies that deal with global threats, avoid local conflicts where possible, and win them where necessary.

Colored with gripping battlefield experiences that range from the jungles and highlands of Southeast Asia to the mountains of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to the dusty towns of the Middle East, The Accidental Guerrilla will, quite simply, change the way we think about war. This much anticipated book will be a must read for everyone concerned about the war on terror.

This book should be required reading for every American soldier, as well as anyone involved in the war on terror. Kilcullen's central concept of the 'accidental guerrilla' is brilliant and the policy prescriptions that flow from it important. And that's not all; the book has many more insights drawn from various battlefields. - Fareed Zakaria, Newsweek

Order The Accidental Guerrilla now.

By Gerry J. Gilmore

American Forces Press Service

The Defense Department is forming a civilian expeditionary workforce that will be trained and equipped to deploy overseas in support of military missions worldwide, according to department officials.

The intent of the program "is to maximize the use of the civilian workforce to allow military personnel to be fully utilized for operational requirements," according to a Defense Department statement.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed Defense Department Directive 1404.10, which outlines and provides guidance about the program, on Jan. 23...

Certain duty positions may be designated by the various Defense Department components to participate in the program. If a position is designated, the employee will be asked to sign an agreement that they will deploy if called upon to do so. If the employee does not wish to deploy, every effort will be made to reassign the employee to a nondeploying position.

The directive emphasizes, however, that volunteers be sought first for any expeditionary requirements, before requiring anyone to serve involuntarily or on short notice. Overseas duty tours shall not exceed two years.

Employees in deployable-designated positions will be trained, equipped and prepared to serve overseas in support of humanitarian, reconstruction and, if absolutely necessary, combat-support missions.

The program also is open to former and retired civilian employees who agree to return to federal service on a time-limited status to serve overseas or to fill in for people deployed overseas.

Program participants are eligible for military medical support while serving in their overseas duty station.

All participants will undergo pre- and post-deployment medical testing, including physical and psychological exams.

Defense civilians reassigned from their normal duty to serve overseas will be granted the right to return to the positions they held prior to their deployment or to a position of similar grade, level and responsibility within the same organization, regardless of the deployment length.

Families of deployed Defense Department civilian employees shall be supported and provided with information on benefits and entitlements and issues likely to be faced by the employee during and upon return from a deployment.

Defense civilian employees who participate in the expeditionary program shall be treated with high regard as an indication of the department's respect for those who serve expeditionary requirements.

Expeditionary program participants' service and experience shall be valued, respected and recognized as career-enhancing.

Participants who meet program requirements would be eligible to receive the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Global War on Terrorism.

Related Sites:

Defense Department Directive 1404.10

This node analysis is, after all, how they found the right rat hole near Tikrit. Jonathan could be onto something.

Though it pales in comparison to the IW Bottle of Scotch challenge laid out by Frank Hoffman, there's some Thunderbird for anyone that can produce action photos of the elusive Mr. Flick in his burrow.

Update: Some more at Abu Muqawama and Ghosts of Alexander.

News Links:

Gates Warns of Prolonged Commitment in Afghanistan - Washington Post

Gates: US Lacks Strategic Plan to Win in Afghanistan - Baltimore Sun

Gates: Modest Goals, More Strikes - New York Times

Gates Says US Must Set Realistic Goals in Afghanistan - Los Angeles Times

Gates Says Afghan Terror Fight Trumps Nation-Building - Bloomberg

Afghanistan is 'Greatest Challenge - Financial Times

Afghanistan is Top US Priority: Pentagon Chief - Agence France Presse

Gates Expects More Troops in Afghanistan - Associated Press

Military Ready to Send More Troops to Afghanistan, Gates Says - AFPS

Pentagon Sees Limit on US Troops in Afghanistan - Reuters

Gates Says More Troops for Afghanistan by Summer - Associated Press

Gates Says Missile Attacks in Pakistan Will Continue - CNN

Iran Playing "Subversive" Latin America Role - Reuters

US Moves to Counter Chinese Military Modernization - Voice of America

Gates on How to Institutionalize Counterinsurgency - Washington Independent

Procurement Reform Must be Government Priority, Gates Tells Senate - AFPS

Gates: Cash Cows of War Running Dry - Wired

Here are several excerpts from the opening remarks by Secretary Gates.

Afghanistan and Pakistan

There is little doubt that our greatest military challenge right now is Afghanistan. As you know, the United States has focused more on Central Asia in recent months. President Obama has made it clear that the Afghanistan theater should be our top overseas military priority. The ideology we face was incubated there when Afghanistan became a failed state, and the extremists have largely returned their attention to that region in the wake of their reversals in Iraq. As we have seen from attacks across the globe -- on 9/11 and afterwards -- the danger reaches far beyond the borders of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

There are more than forty nations, hundreds of NGOs, universities, development banks, the United Nations, the European Union, NATO, and more, involved in Afghanistan -- all working to help a nation beset by crushing poverty, a thriving drug trade fueling corruption, a ruthless and resilient insurgency, and violent extremists of many stripes, not the least of which is Al Qaeda. Coordination of these international efforts has been less than stellar, and too often the whole of these activities has added up to less than the sum of the parts -- a concern I'm sure many of you share.

Based on our past experience in Afghanistan -- and applicable lessons from Iraq -- there are assessments underway that should provide an integrated way forward to achieve our goals.

As in Iraq, there is no purely military solution in Afghanistan. But it is also clear that we have not had enough troops to provide a baseline level of security in some of the most dangerous areas -- a vacuum that increasingly has been filled by the Taliban. That is why the U.S. is considering an increase in our military presence, in conjunction with a dramatic increase in the size of the Afghan security forces. Because of the multi-faceted nature of the fight -- and because of persistent ISAF shortfalls for training teams -- all combat forces, whether international or American, will have a high level of counterinsurgency training, which was not always the case.

In the coming year, I also expect to see more coherence as efforts to improve civil-military coordination gain traction -- allowing us to coordinate Provincial Reconstruction Teams in a more holistic fashion, both locally and regionally. And there will be an increased focus on efforts at the district level, where the impact of both our military and rebuilding efforts will be felt more concretely by the Afghan people, who will ultimately be responsible for the future of their nation.

While this will undoubtedly be a long and difficult fight, we can attain what I believe should be among our strategic objectives: an Afghan people who do not provide a safe haven for Al Qaeda, reject the rule of the Taliban, and support the legitimate government that they elected and in which they have a stake.

Of course, it is impossible to disaggregate Afghanistan and Pakistan, given the porous border between them. I do believe that the Pakistani government is aware of the existential nature of the threat emanating from the FATA. The U.S. military knows firsthand how difficult it is to wage counterinsurgency with a force designed for large-scale, mechanized warfare -- a fact complicated by Pakistan's recent tensions with India. Pakistan is a friend and partner, and it is necessary for us to stay engaged -- and help wherever we can. I can assure you that I am watching Pakistan closely, and that we are working with State, Treasury, and all parts of the government to fashion a comprehensive approach to the challenges there.

Iraq after SOFA

As you know, the Status of Forces agreement between the U.S. and Iraq went into effect on January 1st. The agreement calls for U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraqi cities by the end of June, and all troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011, at the latest. It balances the interests of both countries as we see the emergence of a sovereign Iraq in full control of its territory. Provincial elections in just a few days are another sign of progress.

The SOFA marks an important step forward in the orderly drawdown of the American presence. It is a watershed -- a firm indication that American military involvement is winding down. Even so, I would offer a few words of caution. Though violence has remained low, there is still the potential for setbacks -- and there may be hard days ahead for our troops.

As our military presence decreases over time, we should still expect to be involved in Iraq on some level for many years to come -- assuming a sovereign Iraq continues to seek our partnership. The stability of Iraq remains critical to the future of the Middle East, a region that multiple presidents of both political parties have considered vital to the national security of the United States.

North Korea, Iran, and Proliferation

Beyond these operations, one of the greatest dangers we continue to face is the toxic mix of rogue nations, terrorist groups, and nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. North Korea and Iran present uniquely vexing challenges in this regard. North Korea has produced enough plutonium for several atomic bombs; Iran is developing the capabilities needed to support a nuclear weapons program. North Korea's conventional capability continues to degrade as it becomes more antiquated and starved -- in some cases literally -- for resources and support. Both countries have ballistic missile programs of increasing range and a record of proliferation.

The regional and nuclear ambitions of Iran continue to pose enormous challenges to the U.S. Yet I believe there are non-military ways to blunt Iran's power to threaten its neighbors and sow instability throughout the Middle East. The lower price of oil deprives Iran of revenues and, in turn, makes U.N. economic sanctions bite harder. In addition, there is the growing self-sufficiency and sovereignty of Iraq, whose leaders -- including Iraqi Shia -- have shown they do not intend for the new, post-Saddam Iraq to become a satrapy of its neighbor to the east. This situation provides new opportunities for diplomatic and economic pressure to be more effective than in the past.

On North Korea, the Six-Party Talks have been critical in producing some forward momentum -- especially with respect to North Korea's plutonium production -- although I don't think anyone can claim to be completely satisfied with the results so far. These talks do offer a way to curtail and hopefully eliminate its capacity to produce more plutonium or to enrich uranium, and reduce the likelihood of proliferation. Our goal remains denuclearization, but it is still to be seen whether North Korea is —to give up its nuclear ambitions entirely.

Ground Force Expansion and Stress on the Force

In an effort to meet our nation's commitments and relieve stress on our force and their troops' families, the Department continues to expand the end-strength of the Army and Marine Corps -- growth that began in 2007 and will continue for several years.

The Army exceeded both recruiting and retention goals for FY 2008, and is on path to achieve its goal of an active duty end-strength of 547,400 by the end of this fiscal year. It will continue to increase the number of active Army Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) with a goal of moving from 40 to 42 BCTs this year and towards an end goal of 48 BCTs.

Despite having fallen 5 percent short of its retention goal, the Marine Corps is on track to meet its end-strength goal of 202,000 by the end of this fiscal year.

In all, the Army and Marine Corps are undergoing the largest increase to their active ranks in some four decades. The expectation is that, with a larger total force, individual troops and units will, over time, deploy less frequently with longer dwell times at home. The goal for the Army is two years off for every year of deployment. The expected reduction of American troops in Iraq could be offset by proposed increases in Afghanistan, so it may take some time before we reach that goal. The Services are carefully managing their growth to ensure that it is consistent with the high standards expected from an all-volunteer force.

Read the entire transcript here.

During the 1990s, the U.S. defense debate was dominated by those who argued that advances in technology, particularly information technology, had revolutionized military affairs and changed the nature of warfare. Under former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, this view -- now called transformation -- came to characterize U.S. military planning. Based on the example of the 1991 Gulf War, advocates of transformation argued that our technological edge would allow American forces to identify and destroy targets remotely, defeating an adversary at low cost in casualties.

Though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have largely discredited staunch transformation advocates, a heated debate still rages about the shape of the future U.S. military. One side, the "Long War" school, argues that Iraq and Afghanistan are characteristic of the protracted and ambiguous wars America will fight in the future. Accordingly, they say, the military should be developing a force designed to fight the Long War on terrorism, primarily by preparing for "small wars" and insurgencies...

More at The Wall Street Journal.

Barack Obama has said that his priority in the war on terrorism is Afghanistan, and is poised to increase troop levels there, perhaps by as many as 30,000. How should the United States deal with growing strength of the Taliban? Is increasing troop levels enough? We asked some analysts for their thoughts on military and political strategy in the region...

Kori Schake, former national security adviser

Andrew Exum, former United States Army officer

Bruce Riedel, former C.I.A. officer

John Nagl, former United States Army officer

Parag Khanna, senior research fellow at the New America Foundation

Read all five in full at The New York Times.

H/T to Rebecca White.

Stifled Innovation? Developing Tomorrow's Leaders Today by Dr. Leonard Wong, US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, April 2002. Synopsis and emphasis by Cavguy at the Council.

Of the 365 days in the year, approximately 109 days are unavailable for training due to weekends, federal holidays, payday activities, and the Christmas half-day schedule. This results in a total of about 256 available days for company commanders to plan and execute training.

Requirements for mandatory training at the company level riginate from Army Regulation 350-1, Army Training, policy letters, command training guidance, and other directives. Scrubbing all levels of command down to the Brigade level, to include Department of the Army, Major Army Command (MACOM), Corps, Division, and installation level, for anything that generates a training requirement results in the identification of over 100 distinct training requirements...

... Note that, as expected, most directed mission-related training requirements come from Division-level or below. More importantly, most directed nonmission-related training requirements originate from DA and MACOM levels. This is critical since policy actions may be most effective in reducing the DA and MACOM requirements.

Incorporating the amount of time necessary to execute each directed training requirement (for example, training on "The Benefits of an Honorable Discharge" takes about 60 minutes a year) results in approximately 297 days of directed training.

Of the 297 days, about 85 percent (or 254 training days) is mission-related training and 15 percent (or 43 training days) is nonmission-related training.

The number of days required by all mandatory training directives literally exceeds the number of training days available to company commanders. Company commanders somehow have to fit 297 days of mandatory requirements into 256 available training days.

When we eventually get back to "normal" let's get back to the future.

... We just need to remain steady in our approach and steadfast in our resolve and I think we'll come through the next few years of ongoing conflict and economic crisis in fine fashion. There's lots of opportunities in every crisis and we're poised to take advantage of them.

With respect to your comment concerning participation in the blogosphere and the upcoming milbloggers conference, let me speak pretty plainly - most of the blogs I've dropped in on and read on a regular basis leave me pretty cold. Too many seem to be interested in scoring cheap, and anonymous, hits vice engaging in meaningful and professional exchanges. There is also a general lack of reverence for facts and an excess of emotion that, for me, really reduces the value of the blog. Incorrect/inaccurate data and lots of hype may be entertaining for some, but just doesn't work for me.

My best example of a truly worthwhile blog, worthy of our time and intellectual engagement, is the Small Wars Journal. The tone is always professional, the subject matter is compelling and the benefit from participating is significant.

All that said, here I am - I recognize the reality of the blogosphere and the potential that exists for worthwhile exchanges that enhance our professional knowledge and overall awareness. My intent is to continue to participate when I can and where I see I can make a contribution to a professional exchange, but my view today is that the bloggers generally see their activity as far more meaningful than I do right now. I do, however, remain hopeful...

Thank you sir and we will do our damndest to live up to your kind words. Keelhaul us if we stray.

By Gerry J. Gilmore

American Forces Press Service

As part of the Obama administration's assessment of the strategy being employed in Afghanistan, the U.S. military will focus its efforts on achieving shorter-term goals there, the Defense Department's top official said here yesterday.

"One of the points where I suspect both administrations come to the same conclusion, is that the goals we did have for Afghanistan are too broad and too far into the future," Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates told reporters at a Pentagon press conference.

President Barack Obama met with Gates and other National Security Council members at the White House on Jan. 21.

The United States needs to set "more concrete goals" for Afghanistan that "can be achieved realistically within three to five years," Gates said. For example, he said, efforts should be made to re-establish Afghan government control in the country's southern and eastern regions, as well boost security and improve the delivery of services to the population.

And, U.S., coalition and Afghan military operations targeting al-Qaida and Taliban insurgents must be maintained in Afghanistan to prevent the re-establishment of terrorism in the region, Gates said.

Obama said yesterday during a State Department visit that increased violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan threatens global security and constitutes "the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism." The Afghan government, he said, has been hard-pressed to deliver basic services to its people.

"Violence is up dramatically in Afghanistan," Obama said. "A deadly insurgency has taken deep root." And, along Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan, he said, al-Qaida and Taliban fighters "strike from bases embedded in rugged tribal terrain along the Pakistani border."

About 34,000 U.S. troops are posted in Afghanistan. Commanders there have requested about 30,000 additional U.S. forces to be used to suppress resurgent Taliban fighters and al-Qaida terrorists.

Meanwhile, Obama is studying several Pentagon-provided options for a drawdown of U.S. combat troops from Iraq.

Improved security and reduced violence in Iraq today "clearly permit" a responsible drawdown of U.S. troops from Iraq, said Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who accompanied Gates at yesterday's news conference. The availability of more troops for Afghanistan, Mullen said, is generally "tied to that [Iraq] drawdown."

The threat to the United States now "is focused in the Afghan theater," Gates said, including "both sides" of the Afghan-Pakistani border. Obama, accordingly, "wants to put more emphasis on Afghanistan," the secretary said.

Therefore, Gates said, the U.S. military is transitioning from the "highest priority that we have given to Iraq over the last several years, and moving that priority to Afghanistan."