Charlie Rose

dividepakistan  03/31/2009 11:42 AM Report

In my opinion, Mr. David Kilcullen has been able to study my book titled "DIVIDE PAKISTAN TO ELIMINATE TERRORISM" which was published in November 2006. My petition with the same title was first published in 2001 soon after 9/11. The theory of disintegration of Pakistan was first given by me and since 2001 I am advocating disintegration of Pakistan and formation of 5 or 6 new states in South Asia. My second book titled "FORMATION OF REPUBLIC OF JINNAHPUR" is also yet another explosive publication which sparked controversy in Pakistan. The second book paved way for tabling of a specific PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY BILL in the National Assembly of Pakistan.

I was the first person who had declared Pakistan as "most dangerous country" on page 40 of my book "DIVIDE PAKISTAN TO ELIMINATE TERRORISM". Similarly, I was also first one to call General (R) Pervez Musharraf as TERRORIST IN UNIFORM.

I am glad that Mr. David Kilcullen has also followed my ideology about Pakistan?s possible disintegration. However, it would have been better if he had mentioned my book as reference in support of his argument about disintegration / collapse of Pakistan in his recent article in WASHINGTON POST.

Syed Jamaluddin

Germany

Tel +49-1747061641

Fax +1 612 284 1157

www.dividepakistan.blogspot.com

dividepakistan  03/31/2009 11:40 AM Report

In my opinion, Mr. David Kilcullen has been able to study my book titled "DIVIDE PAKISTAN TO ELIMINATE TERRORISM" which was published in November 2006. My petition with the same title was first published in 2001 soon after 9/11. The theory of disintegration of Pakistan was first given by me and since 2001 I am advocating disintegration of Pakistan and formation of 5 or 6 new states in South Asia. My second book titled "FORMATION OF REPUBLIC OF JINNAHPUR" is also yet another explosive publication which sparked controversy in Pakistan. The second book paved way for tabling of a specific PROVINCIAL AUTONOMY BILL in the National Assembly of Pakistan.

I was the first person who had declared Pakistan as "most dangerous country" on page 40 of my book "DIVIDE PAKISTAN TO ELIMINATE TERRORISM". Similarly, I was also first one to call General (R) Pervez Musharraf as TERRORIST IN UNIFORM.

I am glad that Mr. David Kilcullen has also followed my ideology about Pakistan?s possible disintegration. However, it would have been better if he had mentioned my book as reference in support of his argument about disintegration / collapse of Pakistan in his recent article in WASHINGTON POST.

Syed Jamaluddin

Germany

Tel +49-1747061641

Fax +1 612 284 1157

www.dividepakistan.blogspot.com

John Wagner  09/17/2008 02:14 PM Report

Kevin, as I am sure you are reading all the laudatory comments about your hour with Mr. Rose, let me add these thoughts: I first read about you in the New Yorker, and I thought that perhaps the US had finally put someone thoughtful in charge of perhaps one aspect of our armed forces. But as I watched you on Mr. Roseâ??s show, I saw that you are nothing more than a technocrat bend on career advancement with your theoretical approach to winning the war in Iraq. You seem pathologically incapable â?? as so clearly in your boss â?? in recognizing the epic human tragedy this war has caused, the attention and funds it has diverted from a true fight on terror, and the hypocritical catastrophe it is to US foreign policy. (Can you perhaps start by admitting that we CAUSED the problem you are trying to solve?) Tens of thousand dead, tens of thousands maimed, a million refugees, and for you, itâ??s all just an chess game that you smirk and smile through, as you move human assets into and out of war zone, ho hum, leaving a few dozen dead behind; a few ruined families, ho hum, thereâ??s plenty more where they came from. More to maim and ruin and murder. The only thing that came across to me in your interview was your unabashed personal ambition to be right and your willingness to sacrifice lives â?? lives! â?? to see your theories tested. I want to tell you that my two boys, who will soon be draft age, will in no way be part of the reckless belligerent force you and your ruthless bosses has unleashed so cavalierly upon an innocent world. I beg you to go back where you came from, where maybe you can get some true insight into the brutal nature of your great game, by risking your own flesh and blood with your next chess move â?? maybe even you could pick up a gun Kevy! â?? before so blithely send unwilling others into battle. May god have mercy on your soul, you sorry, pathological sad manâ?¦

Frank B.  11/02/2007 02:48 PM Report

It's most illuminating and satisfying to hear somebody who seems to know what he is talking about. Even more illuminating would be to form a panel of two or three such experts (for example, a John Robb as one possible candidate for the panel) to discuss and hammer out where this is all headed.

It seems the troop presence in Iraq should be as quickly as possible reduced to just the "highly skilled practicioners" of counter-insurgency by finding innovative ways of also decentralizing the burdensome support infrastructure over there--everything needs to be decentralized not just the tip of the spear!

Ron  10/24/2007 12:53 AM Report

Let us all focus our lenses on the Iraq War to see it as Counterinsurgency. Letâ??s focus, using experts like Mr. Kilcullen and Gen. Petraeus. They can set the parameters for us based on Malaya and other military history. They speak in so erudite and responsible a tone. They know dark secrets, like the right people to kill, the way to make a population come over to our side, say in 10 years when we clear out enough of the bad people. If we keep it abstract and compare the Insurgents to other bad guys in history, it makes it easy to justify killing them. Letâ??s not at all focus our lenses on how this War serves the oil and gas interests, ensuring the oilfields and shipping lanes are free for the good guys, mostly us, who have no choice but to keep the oil and gas industries in power. We, not those industries, will pay for the war with our money and the lives of those who happen to do the military job. We will let them focus our lenses for us, to let us know who the bad guys are, like Insurgents or Iran. For these experts sound like theyâ??ll protect the good guys--naturally, us.

Todd Larkin  10/16/2007 04:03 PM Report

What I love about this interview is how Charlie Rose demonstrates throughout the interview that he just doesn't get it.

He returns several times to the question of how to withdraw from Iraq in the short term and how do you reconcile the fact - FACT - that going into Iraq was the wrong thing to do with the need to stay there. At one point, he asks... if you're a [democratic\ politician here in the US and you think going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing, etc, what do you do? How do you get out?

Kilcullen repeatedly tells him - that's a fine historical question and discussion point in terms of lessons learned, but it has no bearing on our current situation in Iraq.

I want to get out of Iraq as soon as possible as well... I just want to do it without creating a worse situation that what we have today.

And charlie just doesn't get it. (Living in the Manhattan Media Bubble can be difficult on one's faculties...)

Ian Bach  10/11/2007 03:40 AM Report

Excellent interview. I am constantly amazed at how ahead of us the Aussie's are in the fight against terrorism. To bad the average citizen has no idea what counterinsurgency is and how much our tactics and strategy are changing to meet the needs.

Cheers to David Kilcullen!!!

Chris Baker  10/09/2007 10:43 PM Report

The key problem Kilcullen ignores is the strain on the troops of winning over the local population. The 10th Mountain Division is supposedly trained to deal with the psychological stress of operating in extreme environments, and even they apparently have had some flagging morale. Therefore I don't know how long US troops can carry on in these outposts etc. which are sometimes little more than a school building.

William King  10/09/2007 02:51 PM Report

Most people donâ??t like to admit they were wrong. For example, there are people who invested in a stock that then fell in the market. Stock market experts will advise them to take their lumps and get out so they can put their money to better use elsewhere. Psychologically they find themselves unable to take that advice. They hang onto the stock hoping that it will at least get back to the price at which they purchased the stock. Instead they just usually keep losing more and more.

That is what is happening to us in Iraq. We made a bad decision and now find that we have a mess on our hands with little prospect that the situation will improve in the short term. We need to make the best deal we can, cut our losses, and get out. Instead Bush keeps hanging on hoping against hope that something will come along and get us back to even. People like Kilcullen play right into Bushâ??s hands by offering some hope and give him an excuse to delay making the inevitable admission that invading Iraq was a terrible mistake. In effect, Kilcullen and other spellbinders like him are being used by Bush. Kilcullen is a smart person and I am sure he believes what he says, however I cannot help but wonder if people like him donâ??t sometime wake up in the middle of the night and question if perhaps they bear some responsibility for the continued loss of lives on both sides of the conflict.

Michael Lang  10/09/2007 02:30 PM Report

It is interesting to contrast David Kilcullen's top down strategic vision of the counter insurgency to the actual experience of those on the ground who have to actually implement that strategy. Kilcullen believes that applying the laws of counter insurgency physics , secure one province at a time and than transfer that responsibility for security to the local population will eventually, painfully and inevitably bring stability to all of Iraq. In the "War As We Saw It" a now famous op ed written by army rangers with the 82nd Airborne Division, they present a much more pessimistic point of view " To believe that Americans, with an occupying force that long ago outlived its reluctant welcome , can win over a recalcitrant local population and win this counterinsurgency is far fetched"

Margaret  10/09/2007 01:33 PM Report

We were all seduced by Kilcullen's soft, accented, intelligent words. For the most part he didn't say anything new. It wasn't until his comments on Iran that he released information that seemed new to me. Charlie raised his eyebrows but didn't follow through when Kilcullen admits that we are already working on "taking out" Iranian forces! What precisely does that mean? He talks about killing an Iranian leader and concludes with the off handed comment that "various work," is still going on. The next question should have been where is this work going on, in Iran? If you're interested in reviewing this section set the bar at 41 minutes and listen carfully.

Brett A. Thompson  10/09/2007 06:47 AM Report

This interview blows most out of the water! For those you of who think this trough, David Kilcullen is spot on and has allready accomplihed what his distracters fear and can only dream of. The media needs to wake up and show more inteligence and more Mr. Kilcullens. He isn't the only bright bulb in the box. Thank you Mr.Rose for providing this interview!

Stephen Morris  10/09/2007 05:24 AM Report

I have studied the history of counterinsurgency, particularly in South Vietnam, where I was in 1970 and 1972. I have a doctorate from Columbia, and have been published in major professional journals, popular magazines and newspapers. So I know something about this subject. My reaction to this program was that David Kilcullen is an incredibly intelligent, lucid and articulate man. He is totally in command of his subject.

Although I think I know quite a bit about the subject, I found David Kilcullen's presentation extremely useful. I am extremely encouraged that a man of this intellectual calibre is now influencing US strategy.

Thank you for this program Charlie. And if you can find a way to do it, please try to lure some of the smarter, openminded, Democratic members of Congress into watching this program.

william  10/09/2007 05:05 AM Report

This guy â?? as Charlie alluded to early in the interview â?? is being put forth by the current US govt. as an â??expertâ?? on all matters counterinsurgent. I found nothing brilliant or original in what Dr. Kilcullen said during this interview. We all know the solutions to insurgencies and civil wars are political. Dr. Kilcullen appears to be a charming aussie-accented shill, full of the same bland bull that this govt. has been giving the world for the past five years. Basically he is saying that the status quo in Iraq should go on for another ten to thirty years, and then perhaps the Iraqis will find a political solution. Iâ??m no â??expertâ?? (I only have a Masters in Intl. Studies) but if we want to stabilize Iraq - if it is that important to our National Interest - couldnâ??t we / shouldnâ??t we draft our young men and â??surgeâ?? about 500,000 troops into the country? Now that might change things. 28,000 troops is less than a band-aid. This isnâ??t rocket science, is it?

Chris Free  10/09/2007 03:40 AM Report

i understand mr. kilcullen's logical, methodical, insightful, and optimistic opinions of the war in iraq; what's missing is the honest articulation by anyone besides mr. kilullen that no insurgency has taken less than 10 years to quell -- the cost of those 10 years -- and whether it's worth the price.

Steve Brown  10/09/2007 01:23 AM Report

I appreciated the way Dr. Kilcullen would not speak on behalf of the U.S. Generals and kept the discussion on the environment. Yes, indeed, defeating the efforts of an insurgency movement does take a long time as history shows and Dr. Kilcullen revealed. His point that the successful resolution of insurgencies around the world have been political was very insightful. As the insurgents tend to over-extend their welcome, the general population will gravitate toward the other direction IF there is something rewarding on the other side. Someone posted a comment with comparisons to Vietnam. Yes, I would have hoped we learned some lessons from that particular experience. In fact, the later years of Vietnam had us moving in the same direction the Iraq surge is now taking us. With Vietnam, we simply ran out of time to seriously employ those tactics. Disbanding Iraq's military was a major mistake and rebuilding the army/police has proved a severe challenge. The sooner they can assume more defensive capacity the sooner our domestic tension will ease.

K . Teel  10/09/2007 12:56 AM Report

The liberals are not going to like to hear this man's logical, methodical, insightful, and optimistic opinions of the war in Iraq. This was an excellent interview, with an individual who can truly provide clarity of thought on the issues involved. Bravo Charlie. The quality of this guest is about as high as it gets. This was a great show.

Joanna Byrd  10/09/2007 12:33 AM Report

A most enlightening program! Thanks Charlie for deciding within the interview to extend it to an hour. I second the motion of commentors on David Kilcullen being appointed to the inner circle of the Administration. Please, please have him on again soon for an update!

Bill  10/08/2007 09:26 PM Report

Elsewhere, Kilcullen has made the point that insurgents aren't pulled into action by their relgion..but instead by their social network.

I've had to combat tours in Iraq as a Marine officer. Kilcullen speaks the truth on this (and other) points.

75% of the "military aged males" who are causing problems in Iraq...are nothing more than "gansta's"...lured, pulled into action by their peers. There's a large part of the insurgency that's nothing more than men trying to impress/be seen as important among their peers. Boys in the hood..in a different culture.

Wayne   10/08/2007 09:04 PM Report

Finally, and informed, unbiased, and not politically motivated analysis of the situation. Great show!!!

Daniel  10/08/2007 04:10 PM Report

I just watched this segment on PBS/west coast and was amazed at the amount that was censored. What gives? I could go to a European connection and hear the whole thing. This is America yes? Are we not allowed to judge for ourselves what someone has to say?

David did put the Iraq situation into a different perspective but I did not get the feeling of trust from him. So how much can we believe?

julie  10/08/2007 03:09 PM Report

I found the Kilcullen interview insightful, informed,focused and concentrated on the strategy we require NOW. God willing, we can resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. Thanks to Charlie for inviting him.

Sam Saqfalhait  10/08/2007 02:36 PM Report

From Oliver Cromwell to General Petraeus, Information (or rather misinformation) has always been and continues to be a weapon of war. This weapon is not foolproof. It can very easily backfire. So, it ought to be handled with extreme care. David Kilcullen and General Petraeus are deliberate in asserting that while 95% of the Al-Qayda insurgents are Iraqi, the leadership is foreign. King Abdullah of Jordan tells us that Zarqawi was originally jailed in Jordan for sexual assault. It is not clear how many Iraqis believe that. Probably some do. But, lamentably, the â??enemy got a brain,â?? to quote Rumsfel. I donâ??t think that this story line holds much water. Of course, Rumsfeld could be wrong on this one too.

William King  10/07/2007 11:09 PM Report

David Kilcullen is a "snake oil" salesman. He talks logically and with persuasion. It sounds good. However he ignores the basic realities of the fact that the Iraqi people view us as a challenge to their religion and their customs. He forgets the basic truth of Vietnam--we can never win an insurgency if we do not have the support of the people. We do not now have the support of the Iraqi people and we never will.

Greg  10/07/2007 06:45 PM Report

I very much got David Kilcullen's population centric vs. enemy centric strategy. Unfortunately with Blackwater - really any occupying forces blunders, which are many - just the way it is - provide food for the replenishment of insurgents on many fronts - and dishearten - an understatement - so many sectors of an Iraqi population. David was thoughtful and has an optimistic - positive perspective - I so much wish I could say realistic - but that has to be earned - given how many troops we have 160,000 ? It only takes a fraction of 1 percent to destroy so much good that is done. David was right about 30 years for the Irish conflict to "settle down" How long has it been for the Tamils and Sinhalese? How are things going in South Africa, even given the truth and reconciliation efforts which were unprecedented as a healing tool? David steered clear of many standard lines of thought, not because he was wishy washy, but because of sheer complexity. If our own administration were able to field such an intelligent perspective !

Chad  10/07/2007 12:49 PM Report

This interview was the most insightful discussion that I have heard yet concerning the situation on ground in Iraq. Our congressman stand up and say that we need to stay in or leave Iraq but they don't really ever give clear explanations as to why. Maybe the reason that we, the voters, are so divided on the issue is because nobody has been able to clearly articulate the true meaning of the ongoing situation. At least not until now. I sat amazed at the humbleness of Mr. Kilcullen and the knowledge that he brought to the interview and I sat wondering what if he was only able to get this one our message out to our nation (and to the people of Iraq). If I were the president, this guy would not be between jobs, he'd be a highly paid speech writer on my staff. Just my opinion.

Bob Gahagan  10/07/2007 11:44 AM Report

As a non-supporter of Pres Bush and this war, where has this guy been? I have never been more enlightened about what we are trying to do and how we are doing it. Since English is not the first language of this president he has not been very effective in stating his case. Even Gen DP could have used the approach of DK in explaining what we are doing.

We screwed this up from day one, should have never gone in, did it for all the wrong reasons, will go down as one of the greatest blunders of all time and Bush will always be held accountable for all of the above. However, what do we do now? DK has presented the first ray of hope for me and others like me.

Steve Haines  10/07/2007 12:17 AM Report

I found this discussion with David Kilcullen to be one of the best ever in ten years of watching Charlie Rose. Of all the administration spokespeople and other informed commentators I have listened to over the years, Kilcullen stands alone as someone who truly knows what he is talking about - a beacon of common sense in a sea of bloviators and partisan advocates. I suggest Kilcullen be nominated for Secretary of Defense and Greg Mortenson (Three Cups of Tea) be installed as Secretary of State. Thank you Charlie.

Jim M  10/06/2007 08:51 PM Report

He was very insightful and gave me a crystal clear view as to how the counterinsurgency is to be handled...I see some post here of people who didn't grasp the overview were "alchemy" comes into play.

Charlie that was one of the best for me

Walt Miller  10/06/2007 05:55 PM Report

Thanks Charlie for a most interesting guest. Maybe I missed it however, but I heard no discussion regarding the religious differences of the Iraqis (Shi'ia, Sunni, and Kurd) and how this affects the potential sucessfulness of counterinsurgency tactics to effect long term stability in Iraq. Paricularly, when Iraq is surrounded by religious-dominated countries, each with its own dominant religion. I don't believe the examples of successful counterinsurgencies in Malaya and Indonesia had this complexity to deal with.

J Merritt  10/06/2007 03:02 PM Report

Probably one of the most insightful individuals on the situation, both first hand and from a researcher's point of view. Some individuals have howled and deplored David Kilcullen showing their true colors and utter inability to fathom the situation; a sad portrayal of the state of our culture.

Josh  10/06/2007 02:37 PM Report

Naturally, David Kilcullen is thinking about hsi future, HOWEVER, I must admit that the hour he spent talking about the current state of affaris in Iraq was a bit refreshing. This man knows his stuff, he understands the complexity of the situation and he doesnt mince words. He was really the only person involved in General Patraeus inner circle that has said "10 years" before we see results.

nader dadgostar  10/06/2007 01:54 PM Report

I suggest that Mr. Rose takes a trip to Iraq,not

the Green Zone in order to understand the situation and dont let an Ozy to maniupolate him so bad. This is very unfortunate to see the Iraqi situation with a very myopic view and compare it to Afganestan ."Afganestan Model"

J W Ditters  10/06/2007 01:52 PM Report

David Kilcullen was outstanding. He clearly laid out the task ahead for Iraq and the counter insurgency strategy. We need to hear more often from experts like him.

Good for you to have him on your show.

Jim Davis  10/06/2007 12:17 PM Report

I was totally absorbed for the hour. He explained exactly (to me) why I'm seeing the positive changes in reports from Iraq. No, not the MSM reports..but the reports that you find when you're looking to see what the real situation is in Iraq, to know the welfare of a family member that's currently there.

Although some people are clearly looking to find him say either a) or b) (as Z.T. Zabski writes), I found Mr. Kilcullen spoke knowingly only on his area of expertise, and to be absolutely honest in his response when he replied that only politics will determine the outcome, and that was not his AOS.

Patrick Downs  10/06/2007 12:11 PM Report

Excellent guest and interview. For those who say he was afraid to "say anything smart" or think his responses canned, I am sorry for your cynicism. I found his answers thoughtful, deliberate, diplomatic without being wishy-washy,and expert. He avoided political rhetoric, posturing, self-promotion, and egotism. He was a breath of fresh air, in a debate (on Iraq) so colored by politic sabre rattling and bloviation. His many years of both on the ground experience and academic study on counter-insurgency to draw upon cements his expert status. His fact that no counterinsurgency has been won in less than 10 years was very valuable to learn.

D Hurst  10/06/2007 12:05 PM Report

I agree with the comments of Mr Zabski and Mr Koger. What a wasted hour with this guy and by the sheepish look on his face with his last comment I think even he knew he had been babbling. My question to you Charlie...did you?

Mark McClure  10/06/2007 11:01 AM Report

David Kilcullen spoke with knowledge and confidence. Dedicated to service without boardroom politics he understands military power and how America can project a successful strategy. David could not give a history lesson to those never having opened a book. For those of us up to speed he was reassuring. To see a glimpse of what a diminishing number of citizens will ever witnes or understand. His focuse on task and responsibilities professional. Nice to have people making significant

contributions make it thru the media blitz. Not limited by ignorant political debate. Thanks to you Mr Rose

Ted Bryla  10/06/2007 03:50 AM Report

On September 14th, 2007 I E-mailed these comments to Mr Rose.

"For 2 years Al Zarqawi ran around Iraq blowing things up and killing people. The USA for all its might couldn't touch him no matter what they did. Then one day Al Zarqawi blows up a hotel in Jordan and within 3 months he is cornered and killed. What changed? Obviously he and his group must have upset somebody or faction and became more of a liability than an asset. Since that day Al Qadea International has been on the run in Iraq. There is a home grown Al Qadea which is location specfic (nationalistic) which is different than Al Qadea International. Apparently now the home grown variety of zealots have worn out their welcome as well."

I've never been to Iraq, yeck I hardly even leave the house. So do we need a PhD Counter Insurgency expert to explain the dynamics of what is going on in Iraq? Actually I liked Dr. Kilcullen, he was measured in his responses and made a complex subjective subject understandable quanitativily.

Z. T. Zabski  10/06/2007 02:13 AM Report

I have to give you credit, Charlie, for trying to draw Dave Kilcullen out of his fox hole to say something meaningful.

His theories about fluid fronts and neighborhood stakeholders would make sense if it conformed to some semblance of reality. Kilcullen seemed to be oblivious to the fact that A) The war is over. and B) The Yahkees lost.

The fact that there are literally millions of disenfranchised Iraqi "stakeholders" languishing in refugee camps and swatting flies in neighboring countries that are regarded as enemies to america is testament that this administration is thoroughly incompetent. We live in an age of mass insanity where language is losing it's meaning and we end up babbling nonsense to each other. There's only one question in my mind that remains unanswered ... who has any intention to clean up this mess?

Ian Farbrother  10/06/2007 02:05 AM Report

Although I can appreciate why M. Koger made the comments he did, I didn't have this kind of problem. I found the David Kilcullen interview to be extremely interesting. He managed to very carefully walk the line between being critical and being informative on the issues associated with counter-insurgency and how they are playing out in Iraq. A former mentor of mine used to say (something to the effect) that "*real* experts are people who are not afraid to say that they don't know something". That was my interpretation of the way that he reacted to questions outside the areas of his (obviously considerable) expertise.

Barbara B. Floyd  10/06/2007 01:52 AM Report

Both my husband and I, retired Foreign Service employees, were surprised to finally hear an expert speak with such expertise about the counterinsurgency that we are embroiled in. We served in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Egypt that give us specific insight into what David Kilcullen was speaking to. Some of the comments on this sight, obviously do not grasp what he was trying to relay (without informing the enemy as well). My husband, as a Provence Senior Advisor, worked with the Vietnamese government and commented that the methods used in Vietnam were essentially the same as those Mr. Kilcullen was trying to explain. We found that far from being oblique, he was very well informed from the standpoint of what needs to be done NOW (as he said what has happened before, is history). We see the problem as two fold, educating not only the local Iraqi population, but also our own population, who have no background in Muslim culture. If we are to stay and be useful, we must educate the voters to make the right choices when they vote. Senator Biden understands and people of his stature could help educate our voters and perhaps get the media to also join in explaining in layman terms what we are trying to do now. Thank you very much for providing us with such informative information at this time.

michael chauvin  10/06/2007 01:17 AM Report

bush better bring this guy into the whitehouse to run his iraq policy.

M. Koger  10/06/2007 01:04 AM Report

Note for Charlie: I stay up late to watch your EXCELLENT programs! For the most part guests are highly intelligent and bring tremendous insight to complicated issues. I normally enjoy your interviews, but your guest tonight (5 Oct 07--Dave Kilcullen) nearly drove me nuts. Not until the last 20 minutes did he begin to answer any questions without a canned or practiced response. He was afraid to say anything smart or give his own opinion; he may in fact not have one. He was bogged down in speaking around all sides of questions you posed. It was clear he did not wish to offend anybody on the entire planet that may possible give him a job in the future; his remarks regarding the General were nearly a love-fest. His answers seemed programmed or vague. All those "Uhm's" betrayed his discomfort with saying anything he actually believed and detracted from one trying to concentrate on the answers. Once he spoke from his own mind, the "Uhm's" diminished, did you notice? But when you tried to get him to focus, he fell back on defending whatever one is supposed to believe rather than what may be a truth. At the end of your interview I didn't know anything new, and that is unlike your usual programs. I don't know how you managed to hang in there for an hour. Sorry. I'll try again Monday & hope you have a brighter guest. Have a great weekend!

Dave Dilegge  10/05/2007 11:31 PM Report

Dave Kilcullen is in the process of writing a book, Oxford Press, I believe. In the meantime, you can find many of his articles - as well as his blog posts at the Small War Journal <www.smallwarsjournal.com>.

Articles in the Reference Library (counterinsurgency) and blog posts at the SWJ Blog - see authors - Dave Kilcullen.

Paul Sneed  10/05/2007 11:23 PM Report

Please look up the proper use of the phrase, "begs the question."

Kevin  10/05/2007 04:53 PM Report

Hi.

Does David Kilcullen have a book published?

Kevin  10/05/2007 04:52 PM Report

Hi.

Does David Kilcullen have a book published?