One-Sided COIN and The Great Debate

One-Sided COIN – Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, The American Conservative.

… In Counterinsurgency 2.0, the Democrats and their military partners now emphasize a population-centric” over an enemy-centric” approach, rebooting the old clear, hold, and build” by adding a civilian surge” and a ramped-up humanitarian mission. The goal for Afghanistan is to flood the country with Foreign Service officers, diplomats, and aid workers to fight corruption and rebuild institutions. The military serves to protect populations, open up space” for democracy, and eventually marginalize the enemy.

So far it’s not happening that way. The Pentagon has maintained a lead on operations, and according to reports, there just aren’t enough State Department officials to make a dent in Kabul, so DoD is planning to take up the slack by directing capable Reserve officers (and probably private contractors) toward the civilian component.

Many have been left wondering what happened to Obama’s promise to re-orient foreign policy so that it is not so military-centric and whether he will end up authorizing new forces beyond the 68,000 U.S. troops expected in Afghanistan by the end of the year.

We’ve basically turned our foreign policy over to the military,” fumed one national-security analyst from a competing Washington think tank who did not want to be named. Every problem has a military solution. Every problem is a nail because we have a hammer. I think you’re starting to see that at CNAS.”

Open criticism of CNAS is rare because the COINdinistas are so snug in the Beltway bosom. While Republican warhawks love that CNAS speaks their language, antiwar liberals and others who chafe against the Long War find themselves derided…

Much more at The American Conservative.

Also, in the latest issue of Joint Force Quarterly, John Nagl and Gian Gentile continue the COIN debate with letters to the editor.