Center for a New American Security

Okay, as a non-think tanker,

Okay, as a non-think tanker, non-inside-the-beltwayer, non-DCer (thank heavens, I say that every time) I have to ask: why is work by an intern automatically suspect? Isn't quality of work the issue, and not 'rank' or credential of the author? Am I taking your jokey comment too seriously, Visitor at 11:52?

I dunno, it's my bias. The youts should be encouraged, that's what I think. At that critical time in a career, we senior types should support and encourage their work! Work hard, interns! Scribble away - we appreciate it out here in the hinterlands of the internets.

Not AT ALL suggesting work

Not AT ALL suggesting work by an intern is automatically suspect. At think tanks, just like ar other institutions, interns often do very important research that makes the higher level analysis possible - and they often engage in great analysis independently.

I was just trying to make a jokey snarky point (that has now been taken too far I guess) that CNAS can/should find more prestigious non-COIN work to showcase.

Shoot Andrew, you sound like

Shoot Andrew, you sound like the firm's PAO with this constant beating drum of CNAS does more than coin.

It is getting old.

And to build on ADTS's question why would it be such a big deal for the CNAS folks to be known as a Coin-centric think tank? Many of your senior analysts do claim that to be your area of expertise, no?

Ha, I had to laugh when Gian

Ha, I had to laugh when Gian Gentile accused someone else of constantly beating a metaphorical drum.

And to build on ADTS's question why would it be such a big deal for the CNAS folks to be known as a Coin-centric think tank? Many of your senior analysts do claim that to be your area of expertise, no?

You know the answer to this question, of course, and you want Ex to respond because you imagine the answer will make him uncomfortable: if CNAS marketed itself as a COIN shop, and COIN turned out to be "just a fad" (or the deciders in this country determined that COIN missions were a waste of resources, or that the sacrifices required to engage in them were not commensurate with the potential gains -- something that is more likely), then CNAS would lose influence and its COINdinista cast would fade into obscurity.

Now, this answer is so obvious that I can only imagine you're being disingenuous and intentionally confrontational when you pretend to need Andrew's help in sorting it out.

Perhaps CNAS seems like a "COIN-centric think tank" to you because you've only ever viewed it through the lens of a COINtra? What I mean by that is that if you were working on "natural security" at State or EPA or Northeast Asian security at Brookings or the NSC instead of working on anti-COIN from inside the U.S. Army, maybe you'd perceive that organization differently.

Better questions: is

Better questions: is Michelle Flournoy a COINdinista? How about Floyd Baker? Patrick Cronin? Marc Lynch? Who are the people that claim COIN as their area of expertise, exactly? Did they only become a COIN shop when the original folks left? Or because they employ/ed John Nagl, Shawn Brimley, and Andrew Exum, and because Ricks shoots his mouth off about whatever happens to be going on in and around the military, which lately has included COIN?

I don't have any stake in this and couldn't care less whether CNAS thinks of itself as a COIN-centric place or not, but it seems clear why they'd choose the latter. I've answered your question about why Ex would insist that CNAS is about more than COIN, deigning to "see inside AM's brain" in a way that you've refused to do. So here's my question: why are you so insistent that CNAS is not more than a COIN think tank? I know about COL Gentile: his interest is in marginalizing their work, making them look like an insider cabal with an undue influence on policy -- it feeds his "dominant narrative." But you -- why do you care?

Whoa. What happened in this

Whoa. What happened in this thread? Is this all inside baseball stuff? Don't tell me about it, because I don't want to know! Ignorance is bliss. I always thought AM was just trying to use AM traffic to highlight the blogs and work of colleagues. Standard stuff in academia and the equivalent. Standard stuff in modern American life, actually - gotta market yourself, gotta get your name out there, and, well, why not? How else are you gonna be 'discovered'?

Why does so much of the discussion around here dwell on personalities and not the substance of the arguments, or information presented?

Man, the things I let myself get drawn into. I really need another hobby.

ADTS: no, no, I was only

ADTS: no, no, I was only expressing confusion, and I thought the same as you initially - what's the big deal? Has the term COIN become so politicized to layperson, by the Afghanistan debate, that the academic nature of the discussion is being obscured (not talking about you or this thread, just wondering, in general, that's all :) )

Gulliver: Well there you

Gulliver:

Well there you have it, you caught me in an enveloping tactic, but so what? Why not have these discussions? This blog lost one of its most important critics in SNLII and his often strident and correct expositions of problems with the think-tank world and more specifically at CNAS. There are troubling conflicts of interests at hand: e.g., Exum's review of the recent book on Tillman; the contradiction between Tom Ricks as a purported reporter and correspondent yet now becomes a think tank expert beholden to a certain policy and ideological view which points to a much larger problem in our country with journalists who take a year off to write a book on whatever subject and do it by ending up on the payroll of a think tank. These are just a few examples.

You said it very accurately: Coin is a Fad, and it should be exposed now as such, especially the Coin of population centric coin as Exum and CNAS has been pushing. History shows this to be the case. Why do I care? Because this Fad of Coin has taken over our ability to do strategy. It has seduced folks into thinking that it can work, that it has worked, and that it will in the future as long as we follow its precepts and techniques.

If this blog claims any semblance of intellectualism along with its sponsor think-tank it should embrace this discussion in the way that Madhu and ADTS frame it in their posts.

"It has seduced folks into

"It has seduced folks into thinking that it can work, that it has worked, and that it will in the future as long as we follow its precepts and techniques."

I do so appreciate it when intelectual ideas become personified entities. It brings back many good memories of oldschool anticommunism, how the ideology of communism was like a virus that entered the body thgrough excess amasturbation and lack of exercise and wich then proceeded to *eat up your brain*.

Not that there arent plenty of arguments against the current idea of COIN. ANd its not a magic bullet, as some folks may come across thinking. But I do hope that the next 5 years, as we phase out according to Karzais "plan", will be focused on learning the limits and applications of "COIN" so that the instituional knowledge is embedded in the military forces of the west whenever next some crazy leader decides its timwe to invade and destroy a foreign country. I think there can be little doubt that even a underfunded COIN campaign in the first 3 years of the Afghan conflict would have seriously altered the base we are building on now. To start drawing a caricature of the idea seems dishonesty intelectualy to me.

Gulliver, Gian would be the

Gulliver, Gian would be the last person on earth to suggest that CNAS only held COINdinistas. He was simply pointing out this blog's unfortunate recourse to serve sometimes as an echo chamber for other CNAS proles, regardless of their academic interests.

Frankly, I don't read this blog anymore. It's not because Andrew has lost his competence as an original, oftentimes essential, voice on the COIN debates, but rather that the tone has changed. He's the star pupil at the front of the classroom now, ratting out the kids with their spitballs in the back, ensuring that the teacher has a polished apple every morning.

He politely raises his hand, sings in the glee club and has proven himself an able waterboy for the team when it takes the field. There's nothing wrong with any of this, and there is much to admire in his honest, dogged advocacy for friends.

But it makes for pretty boring reading. It was so much more fun when he accused (rashly) the Kagans of being chickenhawks with the cadavers of our troops in their blooded beaks, ridiculed the heady assumptions of politicos and bad generals or otherwise caused mayhem with everyday's acerbic posting.

As for Gian, he'll be the first also to tell you that although we're friends, there ain't much that we agree on, much less COIN. I'm actually probably more akin to Exum, both in my interests and my methods. But it's also patently unfair to accuse Gian of being simply interested in COIN.

Like his earlier mentor Con Crane, Gian's work on airpower is brilliant and persuasive. He expertly teaches a wide range of military subjects at a university that uniquely values this competence, and his intellectual interests are catholic and fascinating to those of us who are unlearned.

I know for a fact that when Gian ventures in here to tweak Exum, he does so in a fatherly way because he wants the former Ranger to succeed, and he considers this gentle chiding to be part of a Socratic process that apparently deans of history departments routinely visit upon their brightest students.

There's nothing wrong with that, and I hope both you and Andrew treat it in the congenial spirit in which it is tendered.

Ryan, Do you have a source

Ryan,

Do you have a source for your claim that the FLN was fighting actively while the French were fighting against the OAS? It certainly contradicts what I've read about the period - see, for example, Paul Henissart's excellent history of the OAS conflict, Wolves in the City: The Death of French Algeria.

For instance, I take it that Paul Aussaresses was he practicing "bad COIN"? This, presumably, would be PI-COIN rather than PC-COIN. As far as I'm aware, it is generally considered known history that the French paras defeated the FLN on the battlefield using PI-COIN techniques, eg, electrical torture, extrajudicial executions, and all the other things admitted by Aussaresses. Again, what is your source for the opposite interpretation?

Nothing personal - I am sure you have your own interpretation, which may be more true. But generally I become slightly suspicious when someone calls an interpretation of history I regard as more or less settled "a little bizarre." Generally, to sweep the truth under the rug, one has to insult it with gigantic Stalinist epithets. Falsehoods, on the other hand, can be reduced calmly and with polite discourse.

BTW: the OAS rocked. Vive Salan!

Ryan, Yes, I have a copy of

Ryan,

Yes, I have a copy of Horne. I don't regard it as a very good book, but I also don't recall it saying what you say it said. I would interpret "lay low" as "stop fighting." Perhaps you have some other creative definition? If so, the issue could be resolved quite easily.

So you, like everyone else, admit that the French defeated the FLN - "militarily" - with PI-COIN techniques. It's a very interesting argument: PI-COIN cannot produce real peace. Why? Because our campaign against PI-COIN will make sure that if you use PI-COIN and win militarily, we will defeat you politically! Therefore, PI-COIN does not work and should not be used. Real peace can only be produced by PC-COIN.

Of course, PC-COIN tends to fail "militarily." Google: "softly, softly Britain Basra." But that's okay! It always wins politically. Popular support, as we all know, is the keystone of all power. If the People say 2+2=5, the People may well be right. Therefore, our armed forces should wander around Afghanistan, handing out Bibles and getting their balls blown off, on the basis of the assumption that 2+2=5.

In short, your argument boils down to "resistance is useless - we will defeat you." To make it even shorter: you've discovered that Might makes Right. Which may well be the case. It was certainly the case for France in the 1960s. France, like Spain in the 1890s, could not resist America. Should it not have tried? Should it just have said: "America, Algeria is yours - make a desert paradise of it!" Perhaps it should.

And indeed, what a desert paradise the American way has made of Algeria! The result of France's defeat, of course, was not restricted to Algeria. Care to have a look at the result? Head over here. Or follow the link to M. Desouche's. Vive Salan!

If you're really interested in the Algerian war, I'd recommend diversifying your reading a little more. If you only read sources that agree with you, you're not going to learn anything at all. I've already recommended Henissart's Wolves in the CIty (very neutral in perspective), as well as Aussaresses' book. The latter is a primary source despite its recent publication, because Aussaresses was there. Another great primary source, however, is Michael K. Clark's Algeria in Turmoil (1959). If your knowledge of the period is restricted to conventional secondary sources, you'll quickly find that history is much more interesting than you think!

Andrew, don't be so prickly.

Andrew, don't be so prickly. You're excellent. Your blog, eh, not so much anymore. Just my opinion.

If you need a hug I'm sure Ricks or someone bearish in a nearby cubicle can come over and embrace you sufficiently to take the sting out of whichever inadvertent sling or arrow I hurled your way.

Sheesh.

Gian Gentile is the last

Gian Gentile is the last person who should be lecturing others on intellectual honesty. I mean the SNLII plug was so ridiculous - in a paragraph that complained about suspect relationships no less - that Carl himself had to step in and clarify their 'friendship'. By the way, what do you guys do on the weekends? Wander around Gettysburg, hold hands and place bets on who can get red-in-the-face angry first?

Anyone who has had the misfortune of watching Gian work and re-work his arguments over the last couple of years will have noticed his tired iterations spin endlessly, trying to come up with cute catch phrases, apply COIN logic against itself, and latch on to anything that folks with actual credibility say, then make it about COIN. Remember when Gian fell in love with Bacevich a few months ago? Now apparently, COIN has ruined our ability to do strategy. What next, does COIN cause cancer?

Gian does however have a talent for intellectual negativity. How many papers/comments has he written railing about how COIN is 'bad' compared to actually articulating a helpful alternative? I suppose it's important to stick with what you're good at though.

And now Gian just wants to straight up insult AM, after simperingly kissing ass in the early days. None of us knows if AM is right or not but at least he has the integrity to try and make a positive difference.

Ryan, My, your tongue is

Ryan,

My, your tongue is slippery! By "not necessarily elsewhere," you are either referring to FLN presence in the rural areas, or you are switching the ball under the cup again and referring to a political "elsewhere." In the former case, you are mistaken by any reasonable sense of the words, and in the latter case you are just deploying your Jedi mind tricks. Nobody cares what anyone writes on a blog, so why bother? Save it for the State Department.

Moreover, you call Colonel Gentile "a little bizarre" for saying that the FLN was "laying low" during the period of the struggel between the OAS and France. Do I have this right? Is there some other period that you're referring to? Because you've got to realize that if the French paras were playing dirty before the OAS rebelllion, there was certainly no stopping these badass fsckers during the rebellion. The toughest, most hardened French ass-kickers on the planet were running around Algiers without civilian control. It is not only a fact that the FLN "lay low" in this period, it is unimaginable that they wouldn't have. So if they weren't "laying low" - what were they doing?

And it was not the FLN that defeated France, Ryan. In any sense that counts, France defeated the FLN. It was America - or more specifically Washington - or most specifically Foggy Bottom - or even most specifically Foggy Bottom's Atlanticist shills in the Quai d'Orsay - that defeated France. The same wonderful people that gave us the EU.

Then, after having defeated France, this coalition gave Algeria to the FLN - which France had defeated. So, basically, in the sense of national honor, raping Joan of Arc and giving her to the stableboys as a whore. Droit de seigneur, baby.

(No one could ever have imagined that France would lose her Empire, let alone to a bunch of Arab thugs and two-bit schoolteachers, until she became an American client state. In retrospect, it was probably inevitable once she became an English client state. Poor France! May she rise again.)

Just as in almost all the revolutionary struggles of the democratic era - including our own - the heroic military efforts of the nationalist patriotic revolutionary liberation forces is not what wins the war. Rather, the war is won by either (a) treason at home, (b) British (pre 1945) or American (post 1918) intervention, or (c) both. (In our case, (a) - Burke and the Rockingham Whigs were the political sponsors of the American rebellion.)

When de Gaulle said "I have understood you," and then stabbed the pieds noirs (who had brought him to power) in the back, he committed the traditional Atlanticist act of choosing the "international community" over his own country, France. That makes him a traitor - different in no existential way from, say, Quisling.

And if you don't believe this, try the experiment of replacing the word "international community" with "State Department" every time you see the former in the news. You'll find the fit is just about perfect. If the State Department and the international community are always on the same page, why assume the causal arrow points from the latter to the former? My impression is it's a little more in the other direction. I mean - given events like the above.

Madhu: You have a good point

Madhu: You have a good point about communism, Im old enough to remember it (our neighbour in the east). Having said that, lots of excellent communists. Depends on how they view Stalin in my opinion. (And Ceauscesco, lol.)

Abu M, it would be smart careerwise to fade for a few years. But your blog is always going to haunt you ;-)

Color me entirely

Color me entirely unsurprised by the most recent contributions from both Fnord and Moldbug.

"Don't worry, I'm not

"Don't worry, I'm not offended. I, actually, have been thinking a lot about hanging up the spurs, blogwise" - AM

:(

I've always liked this place for its free ranging comment threads (I mean, just look at this thread! It meanders all over the place. Think tanks, COIN, the politicization of academic trends or supposed 'fads', communism, Mencius Moldbug's Victoriana - okay, I might be talking about a different thread with the Victoriana! I kid! Seriously nutty, interesting, and a perfect example of the vibrant, messy and creative nature of free societies expressing themselves, er, freely. Huh. Good writing is hard, innit?)

Education happens in a variety of ways, and this place does a good job of introducing many people to topics, and blogs and articles, they might otherwise miss. It's not like I would have started reading Small Wars Journal right of the bat, you know?

I would be quite surprised

I would be quite surprised to find one essay Gentile has written wherein the message was "COIN is bad." He publicly has called for counter-insurgency doctrine to be part of the training of every ground combat unit in the US arsenal because he believes popular insurgencies are on the spectrum of conflict that any commander will need to confront.

I don't wish to speak for him, but Gentile seems to believe that the ground component of the US military should cheat toward the more kinetic side of the spectrum, especially because this is a skillset once lost that's hard to revive. He also questions some particular assumptions about the efficacy of COIN doctrine, perhaps because it runs the risk of replacing strategic calculation, perhaps because the causative forces from which "lessons" are drawn in Iraq aren't fully understood by those publicizing them.

While I have strongly questioned certain practices espoused by CNAS and news outlets that fail to disclose untidy relationships with the think tank, I've also been very upfront about my friendship with Gentile and have never quoted him as a source because reporters shouldn't do that.

I'll defend him as a friend even if I don't always defend his notions about COIN. Here, I'll defend his record of scholarship because, most candidly, I don't believe that many making the charges against him here have either read him or understand the rudiments of military science, perhaps both.

An even cursory review of my (rare) public statements will find that I've also defended those who champion ideas quite different from Gentile's notions -- including COL Mansoor, currently at Ohio State -- and, indeed, Andrew Exum.

For those who don't know, Gentile and I first met after we returned from service in Iraq during a public debate over the now infamous Yingling essay. I was still in uniform, and we sparred over the question of whether the generals had failed us, and have continued to debate similar issues over the years, just as he and Con Crane have taken different positions and remain chums.

It's possible to do this, and I see no reason why it should be shocking to confront such a phenomenon.

On the issue of Gettysburg, I believe both Union and Rebel commanders were idiots, but I'm not competent enough to defend this thesis. Gentile, however, probably could.

I give up trying to

I give up trying to understand how you are processing what I am writing. The collapse of political will brought about the defeat - but what brought that on? Hint: NOT the OAS.
It was...
A successful insurgency that drove the French to do some dark and strategically ineffective things. You still don't get this 101 basic stuff and I have no interest in engaging with you on this anymore.

My last comment on this thread. Feel free to have the last word