For the past several years, the widely accepted view among defense analysts had been that counterinsurgency, or COIN, represented the future of U.S. defense planning and operations. This consensus was initially driven by the belief that “effective COIN” had “won” the Iraq War, and later by the need, as former Defense Secretary Robert Gates put it, to fight “the wars we’re in.”
Now things have become far less clear. Awareness has set in that the effects of the 2007-2008 “surge” in Iraq were only partial and, even at the time, only partly achieved by the shift toward conducting what we know as “counterinsurgency.” And most now acknowledge that the “Afghan surge” has not had a similar effect as its Iraqi predecessor. ...
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