Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
The "Is Counterinsurgency Stifling the Debate?" Debate: Day One, Part III
August 25, 2009 | Posted by Abu Muqawama - 11:13am | 5 Comments
From a political science professor (and avid blog reader):
No. No. And No. Or at least no more than having a policy inevitably means official Washington will back that policy and debate about small variations in that policy, rather than fundamental questions. Is the China debate being "stifled" since we don't discuss anymore whether or not to economically shun China due to their human rights practices? Was the nuclear weapons debate "stifled" in the Cold War -- or did most people just agree that it was good for the US to have a big nuclear arsenal given the threat from the Soviet Union?
Look I think that the blog
Look I think that the blog here has some bias toward COIN doctrine, but if that surprised you as a reader then perhaps you’re in the wrong place.
If this blog filtered all comments so that we only saw those of us who believe that COIN has a good chance of success in AFPAK, then all we’d never see Gentile or SNLII’ comments, and we’d be poorer for that.
Exum, it's true you don't
Exum, it's true you don't stifle debate. You just ignore contrary opinions and pretend they don't exist. The reality is that your COIN crowd now seems to most closely approximate a religious cult. A bunch of true believers who've infected the policy makers, who also ignore the many credible voices asking just why it is that your prescription will work in a part of the world where outsiders have always failed. You folks never answer those questions because you don't even recognize them as valid. You begin from a COIN-only orientation, which can envision no other approach. One can hardly imagine a more arrogant and complacent approach to a most difficult problem. One also wonders about the attitude, given the track record.
"Give us money and troops, and we will give you wonderful things." No room for error, no second thoughts. Westmoreland redux. Unfortunately, Iraq is falling apart and you're likely not going to get the resources you'd like to have in Afghanistan. What then? Blame the American people, who are already voicing serious reservations about your desire to continue the adventure? Eight years now and counting, with no progress made towards attaining the goal: security of the U.S. from terrorism. It's no wonder the people are expressing doubts.
I suggest you start thinking about Plan B.
Publius: I think a lot of it
Publius: I think a lot of it stems from different perspectives. Old Blue, Ex and others see it from a operational pov, while many of us ringside commenters see it from a theoretical pov (even when, as in your case sir, it is grounded in practical experience.). Wich I fully understand. I do not see the current team as ignoring arguments, as much as adapting to the challenges. What are they gonna do, throw their arms in the air and run around in circles crying Doom? Pulling out now that the big dog is in motion is simply not an alternative, so it has to be performed.
Quote a recently larned SF slogan: Anyone who cant tapdance is gay.
The distinction between
The distinction between operational and theoretical (or observational) pov seems to me an important one.
With reference to theoretical pov, respectful statements do not assume agreement.
Add your comment