Forthcoming National Interest Article on COIN

[Rank amateur]

But the point I was trying to make is that the strategic costs of extensive, protracted involvement in counterinsurgency outweigh the damage that a hostile regime can do to us. Put differently, we're good at regime removal but we're not so good at counterinsurgency. So rather than break our military and our budget on a counterinsurgency, we make a modest effort and, if it fails, we just go to the new regime and say, "If you do X, Y, and Z (e.g. support transnational terrorism or support insurgents trying to overthrow your neighbor), we will come in and remove you. Then we'll leave. But you will no longer be in power."

Nice to see my thoughts expressed by someone people might actually listen to. We might want to add, "Bomb the hell our of your palaces, party headquarters, army, secret police etc." Since new regimes will understand the US reluctance to take causalities, they are much less likely to call our bluff if we threaten bombing which we can do without causalities.

Phrased differently, we need a strategy of "tough love."

Thirty percent of the country is going to call that "cutting and running." How could we execute your recommendations in the current political environment?

[SteveMetz]

Thirty percent of the country is going to call that "cutting and running." How could we execute your recommendations in the current political environment?

Funny thing (well, not I mean funny like I'm a clown, not like I amuse you, I make you laugh) but I was just writing a section on that. I was arguing that President Bush seems inclined to a high risk/high potential payoff leadership style. In terms of the initial intervention in Iraq, he greatly overstated the certainty of his case. Since then, he has portrayed the only options in Iraq as "victory" or "cut and run."

But here's what I tried to suggest: our conundrum is that to get the public and Congress to support involvement in counterinsurgency in the first place, we have to overstate the threat and the extent of American interests. Americans don't want their sons and daughters dying for something that is peripheral. That then limits our strategic flexibility because it creates the impression that disengagement would be disastrous. It would be a defeat.

To me, that is just one more reason why the United States is ill equipped to undertake major counterinsurgency operations. My solution is that we no longer "do" counterinsurgency, but we do peace enforcement/stabilization. Two strategic and political advantages of that: it makes it easier to disengage when the costs exceed the expected benefits (while Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia and Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon may, as commonly believed, give al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and others the impression that the United States can be influenced by terrorism, they were probably the right moves). So long as we treat counterinsurgency as a variant of war, that means that one side (the side we support) is "right" and the other is "wrong." Americans don't like ties.

Second, casting the activity as peacekeeping/stabilization rather than counterinsurgency (with its Cold War overtones) will make it easier to attract multinational support.

[selil]

.....President Bush seems inclined to a high risk/high potential payoff leadership style. In terms of the initial intervention in Iraq, he greatly overstated the certainty of his case. Since then, he has portrayed the only options in Iraq as "victory" or "cut and run."

Steve are you actually Al Gore? I'm listening to "Assault on reason" on my 2 hour commute each way to school. He said almost those exact words... eeery. No moral or political value attached just scary.

[SteveMetz]

Steve are you actually Al Gore? I'm listening to "Assault on reason" on my 2 hour commute each way to school. He said almost those exact words... eeery. No moral or political value attached just scary.

No. Actually, he is me. A high school science project.

I got a "C."

[Rank amateur]

Funny thing (well, not I mean funny like I'm a clown, not like I amuse you, I make you laugh) but I was just writing a section on that. I was arguing that President Bush seems inclined to a high risk/high potential payoff leadership style. In terms of the initial intervention in Iraq, he greatly overstated the certainty of his case. Since then, he has portrayed the only options in Iraq as "victory" or "cut and run."

But here's what I tried to suggest: our conundrum is that to get the public and Congress to support involvement in counterinsurgency in the first place, we have to overstate the threat and the extent of American interests. Americans don't want their sons and daughters dying for something that is peripheral. That then limits our strategic flexibility because it creates the impression that disengagement would be disastrous. It would be a defeat.

To me, that is just one more reason why the United States is ill equipped to undertake major counterinsurgency operations. My solution is that we no longer "do" counterinsurgency, but we do peace enforcement/stabilization. Two strategic and political advantages of that: it makes it easier to disengage when the costs exceed the expected benefits (while Clinton's withdrawal from Somalia and Reagan's withdrawal from Lebanon may, as commonly believed, give al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and others the impression that the United States can be influenced by terrorism, they were probably the right moves). So long as we treat counterinsurgency as a variant of war, that means that one side (the side we support) is "right" and the other is "wrong." Americans don't like ties.

Second, casting the activity as peacekeeping/stabilization rather than counterinsurgency (with its Cold War overtones) will make it easier to attract multinational support.

As a marketing guy, this positioning makes sense. Am I correct in assuming that you're focused on countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan?

[SteveMetz]

As a marketing guy, this positioning makes sense. Am I correct in assuming that you're focused on countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan?

Yea. I'm trying to offer recommendations for the next time we get this bee in our bonnet rather than ideas on how to deal with the ones we're already in.

[Ken White]

Nice to see my thoughts expressed by someone people might actually listen to. We might want to add, "Bomb the hell our of your palaces, party headquarters, army, secret police etc." Since new regimes will understand the US reluctance to take causalities, they are much less likely to call our bluff if we threaten bombing which we can do without causalities.

I think that the "US reluctance to take casualties is restricted to about a third of the population -- the most visible and vocal third, to be sure -- and that they are joined in this concern only on occasion and that occasion is whne the casualty causing effort is either taking too long (Steve's three years, my two...) or is obviously not doing well. The remaining third is comfortable with the casualties.

I'd like to suggest that the respective 'thirds' are immutably the same people but they are not. A great deal of objection is ideology based. Look no further than Kosovo and Iraq, respectively, to see who goes to which third.

Apply that rule of thumb to any war we've ever been including the current efforts and you see the American people will accept massive casualties if results are being produced; if there are no good results in their belief then the tolerance starts to slip. You can even review the domestic history in WW II -- after the summer of '44, tolerance for the war started downward precipitously.

As a corollary and an aside, that same two years (or three) applies to those fighting; after a couple of years, it gets really old. That really need to be considered. Troop run down or wear out can have really adverse consequences...

Thirty percent of the country is going to call that "cutting and running." How could we execute your recommendations in the current political environment?

Just by leading and accepting that 30% will ALWAYS exist; that's been true in every war from the American Revolution forward (again to WW II -- the nation was not as unified on that as many now like to believe). The key is not that 30%, it's the 30% in the middle, the swing vote as it were. As long as they see 'progress' of a sort, they will vary from 'tolerate' to 'support' and that gives the Admin of the day about 60%. That's enough for government work.

All that does not even address the chimera of "bomb" -- that just flat doesn't work, it NEVER has (the Serbs in Kosovo didn't start coming undone until the KLA was in on the ground). That aspect of Air Power (a power which I support and respect) is a very dangerous myth -- as the Israelis found out last year.

[Rank amateur]

(the Serbs in Kosovo didn't start coming undone until the KLA was in on the ground). That aspect of Air Power (a power which I support and respect) is a very dangerous myth -- as the Israelis found out last year.

You make two important points.

1. Finding someone else to be the boots on the ground works extremely well. (Even Rumsfeld couldn't screw up the first few weeks in Afghanistan.)

2. I agree that for certain tasks, soldiers are absolutely necessary, but Hezbollah hasn't launched an attack into Israel since the war which supports my point: if the objective is deterrence, a ground war isn't always necessary. (With all the work Hezbollah has done rebuilding, they don't want it all destroyed again over minor disagreements and airpower can easily destroy bridges, buildings etc.)

[Ken White]

You make two important points.

1. Finding someone else to be the boots on the ground works extremely well. (Even Rumsfeld couldn't screw up the first few weeks in Afghanistan.)

2. I agree that for certain tasks, soldiers are absolutely necessary, but Hezbollah hasn't launched an attack into Israel since the war which supports my point: if the objective is deterrence, a ground war isn't always necessary. (With all the work Hezbollah has done rebuilding, they don't want it all destroyed again over minor disagreements and airpower can easily destroy bridges, buildings etc.)

you seem to have decided to ignore it. Not only did you miss or at least not acknowledge my contention that most Americans do not care about casualties as long as there are results but you took my very minor reclama of an afterthought to your point and twisted... I'm sorry, spun it, to make your point(s) again...

Good try.

Of course finding someone else to do ones dirty work is always preferable -- just not always possible. It also has the same downside as does commitment of Americans. To wit, if it takes too long and doesn't produce results, the clamor to disengage rises. I never cease to be amazed at how little journalists, marketing guys and politicians, of all people, know about the great unwashed. It seems some want to believe that Americans can be manipulated around their patience and tolerance levels. Those levels are really pretty high but they aren't inexhaustible nor are the finite levels really negotiable.

Deterrence is a very bad strategic policy. It, effectively, is bluffing. Never a good idea between Nations. Unless you're prepared to shoot, do not unholster your weapon...

Kosovo (among others) again offers an example.

I'd also point out that Hezbollah probably got told by the Pasdaran to cool their jets after last years unwanted war and that they have other problems right now. Not to mention that Rumsfeld and Franks DID screw up the first few weeks in Afghanistan. Badly...

[Ron Humphrey]

I think that the "US reluctance to take casualties is restricted to about a third of the population -- the most visible and vocal third, to be sure -- and that they are joined in this concern only on occasion and that occasion is whne the casualty causing effort is either taking too long (Steve's three years, my two...) or is obviously not doing well. The remaining third is comfortable with the casualties.

I'd like to suggest that the respective 'thirds' are immutably the same people but they are not. A great deal of objection is ideology based. Look no further than Kosovo and Iraq, respectively, to see who goes to which third.

Apply that rule of thumb to any war we've ever been including the current efforts and you see the American people will accept massive casualties if results are being produced; if there are no good results in their belief then the tolerance starts to slip. You can even review the domestic history in WW II -- after the summer of '44, tolerance for the war started downward precipitously.

As a corollary and an aside, that same two years (or three) applies to those fighting; after a couple of years, it gets really old. That really need to be considered. Troop run down or wear out can have really adverse consequences...



Just by leading and accepting that 30% will ALWAYS exist; that's been true in every war from the American Revolution forward (again to WW II -- the nation was not as unified on that as many now like to believe). The key is not that 30%, it's the 30% in the middle, the swing vote as it were. As long as they see 'progress' of a sort, they will vary from 'tolerate' to 'support' and that gives the Admin of the day about 60%. That's enough for government work.

All that does not even address the chimera of "bomb" -- that just flat doesn't work, it NEVER has (the Serbs in Kosovo didn't start coming undone until the KLA was in on the ground). That aspect of Air Power (a power which I support and respect) is a very dangerous myth -- as the Israelis found out last year.

I've been thinking something along those lines but couldn't get it together in my head to write down.