Is counterinsurgency dead, as some observers claim? Is it alive and well, as others have argued? Or is it, as still others maintain, merely evolving? One thing is certain. Once fashionable within the Washington beltway, counterinsurgency -- or COIN, as it’s known -- has come under withering criticism, as violence in Afghanistan escalates and the Pentagon tightens its belt. Many of counterinsurgency’s critics are convinced that the U.S. would do well to avoid such campaigns in the future. Who can blame them? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have extracted an ever-mounting toll in time, blood and treasure from a war-weary nation. Moreover, COIN’s track record in Iraq and Afghanistan is mixed, in part because success ultimately lies beyond the control of third-party practitioners.
With deficits now rising and budget cuts looming, Defense Department officials have unveiled a national defense strategy that once again calls for more-agile land forces, with an emphasis on air, sea and special operations forces. Meanwhile, Pentagon officials have adamantly stated that America’s land forces will no longer be sized to conduct prolonged, large-scale stability missions such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
- TWO WEEKS FREE.
- Cancel any time.
- After two weeks, just $11.99 monthly or $94.99/year.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- The Realist Prism: Strategic Ambiguity Fail: When ‘All Options’ Are Not on the Table
- Strategic Horizons: Killing Baghdadi: Decapitating the Islamic State Is No Silver Bullet
- Can Afghanistan’s Ghani Avoid the Pitfalls of the Resource Curse?
- Global Insights: Chemical Weapons Regime Must Be Updated to Better Counter Terrorist Threat
- The Realist Prism: For U.S., Middle East ‘Moderates’ a Fool’s Errand