Modernization/Development Theory, CORDS, and FM 3-24?

[AmericanPride]

So, my question to the probably two whole people that are interested in the topic, is how much did the general intellectual climate of our larger foreign policy intelligentsia find representation in current COIN doctrine?

They are one and the same. The COIN doctrine is fundamentally neoconservative in its approach, with the same basic assumptions governing American foreign policy. There was a huge push to intellectualize our approach to the conflict -- professional soldiers had to justify subordinating their careers and principles to wars that quickly lost credibility among the American public. The decision was made first. The ideas and justifications came afterward. By the time Bush came to office in 2001, America was already basking in its superpower status, and all the privileges thereof in propagating its ideas and methods. The GWoT was preceded by the humanitarian interventions of Somalia, Yugoslavia, and Haiti and the hope to the end of history. We had unfinished business with Iraq and the inconvenience of Al-Qaeda's base of operations in Afghanistan, wars to be explained by the Bush administration that terrorists "hate our freedom". So of course, we end up in Iraq and Afghanistan, only to find to that there are inexplicably more legitimate grievances against Americans than hatred of freedom. But it can't be that these people are actually content with their way of life, or have values which differ from our own. It must be that rampant corruption, religious radicalism, and lack of legitimate government (I'm talking about Afghanistan, not Saudi Arabia), prevent these populations from enjoying the freedoms we have in America. Notwithstanding the evidence in Lebanon and Palestine (and possibly in Egypt), if only people were given democracy, they would come to love our freedom like we do. So we went about building new governments and norms and ethics for them in the hope they would find that inner American within themselves.

If these theories are discredited, why do we continue to interact with nations based on such theories?

In my view, these ideas are institutionalized in America's academies, agencies, and think tanks. American foreign policy is not rational -- it is not developed on the sole basis of pursuing universalized and idealized American interests. Instead, it is formed within the context of on-going political battles between numerous factions and private interests, all of them armed with deep pockets, friendly think tanks and media outlets, and influential friends. Our foreign policy is ad-hoc, short-sighted, subordinate to the prevailing partisan interests of the time, and some times the cart pulls the horse. But all of these are within a narrow range of acceptable ideological boundaries -- namely the orthodoxy of democratic capitalism. The language may have changed since the Cold War with the emergence of neoconservative triumphalism but remains firmly rooted in its militancy and the hostility towards "heretical" political and economic beliefs. The blow back of 9/11 and the shake-up of the on-going financial emergency have not stirred up any serious contender to the foundation of these ideas. And quite frankly, so long as Americans remain largely ignorant and immune (which won't last forever) of the consequences of our policies abroad, it doesn't matter if the ideas aren't credible since nobody knows any better.

Is what I am postulating even true, and is it contributing to our current problems in A-stan?

It depends what you define as the "current problems" in Afghanistan. Is it the existence of a fairly weak, thoroughly corrupt central government with a keen eye towards its own survival? Is it widespread underdevelopment? Is it the use of Afghanistan as a safe haven by terrorist organizations? Or the emergence of an international consciousness in Taliban ideology? Afghanistan was not a big deal in the 2008 election and it doesn't look like it will be in 2012 given the slow economic recovery and the death of OBL. Obama's national security credentials are essentially unassailable at this point, so I doubt Romney will bother bringing them up since he's going to be more focused on Hispanics, women, and the upper class (none of whom particular care for the conflict). So really, perhaps the "problem" is that the war is continuing on auto-pilot with a deadline of 2014 (for now) and there's no longer much at stake to change what will be a foregone conclusion of American withdrawal. The COINistas won the battle. But who lost the war?