Tweet
Just one thing before the Hill confirmation hearings begin. There’s a reprint of the U.S. Army’s stability operations field manual out now. Tom Ricks reads it and recontextualizes it entirely:
What we really are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, I think, is instability operations. I don’t think the U.S. military really has ever been comfortable with that mission, which was one reason we saw a lot of friction early on between the Bremer team trying to bring change and the Sanchez team simply trying to keep a lid on things. Personally, I think the mission of changing the culture of Iraq was nuts — but that was the mission the president assigned the military.
I think a more intellectually honest title for the manual would be "Revolutionary Operations." Don’t hold your breath.
That’s really rather brilliant, and it speaks to a certain blind spot among the counterinsurgency community: missing the broader relationship between counterinsurgency and foreign occupation. This is at the heart of an unfolding debate over whether counterinsurgents are and/or ought to be agnostic on the circumstances under which a counterinsurgency campaign is waged. The field manual says up front that it views Iraq and Afghanistan as anomalies. So what are the other cases in which COIN is employed, goes the question, and now Ricks adds: under what conditions do they make the U.S. a force for instability?
Crossposted to The Streak.
4 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Do you know the military sociologist Ian Roxborough? (At SUNY Stony Brook). I recently saw him give a talk about the Stability Operations manual and COIN, where he framed counter-insurgency as a “theory of counter-revolution”. His main critique was that COIN people were lacking a sophisticated understanding of revolution–i.e., of what ignites and sustains insurgencies. (Conversely, he thinks that sociologists and historians of revolution have something to learn from COIN.)
I don’t, but thanks — I’m going to give him a call. Appreciate the tip. It’s an interesting observation.
under what conditions do they make the U.S. a force for instability?
- vastly different culture which we don’t understand and respect
- occupying forces staying way too long
- repeatedly failing to understand that only with local popular support can you succeed.
- any number of obvious assertions that somehow have eluded our conscious plans.
That’s really rather brilliant…
Yes, yes. Reading anything from Tom Ricks makes you positively tumescent, we know. It is observant and maybe even clever, but brilliant seems like a slight exaggeration. This Ian Roxborough character sounds interesting, though.