Center for a New American Security

Nice strawman, but you miss the fact that the large defense contracting firms have diversified their portfolios into service contracting and, yes, language training, consulting and translation services. I know that you know this. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Make no mistakes, the corporations you name are quite savvy and know where the gravy will be in the short, mid and long term. You know damn well that both Boeing and Lockheed are doing a hell of a lot more than building airplanes. Hell, Lockheed has service contracts throughout the government providing training services, logistics and HR support.

Again, nice dodge. Now that we have demolished your strawman, please address Yglesias' question: do you recieve any funding from said firms?

So you are getting the Palin treatment in a very small way, welcome to the world of the internet. When you walk off the stage just before the strategy is announced by our President, you can and will be accused of much worse than what you pointed out. You made your contribution in the Blogging world and you were good at it. You did a good job of making people think, challenge and/or support COIN doctrine. Good actors learn never to read the critics reviews. Good bloggers when they retire stay off the stage for at least a year before they start blogging again. Life is not about one doctrine presentation. Life is about many doctrines presented as a body of work. Hope I see you blogging again in a year.

Admit it Andrew, you're in the pocket of Big Shawarma!

However, I don't see how this is a problem. Courtesy of the Interwebs, there are now thousands of intrepid Davids who are more than willing to muckrack (totally pro bono!) to throw stones at the Goliaths of public policy. A good argument will stand on its merits, regardless of where the money comes from.

" . I think you're going to have a very tough time, though, arguing that those making the case for a fundamentally low-tech COIN campaign in Afghanistan are carrying water for Boeing, Lockheed Martin, & Co."

1) Agreed with the above commenter -- nice strawman. While COIN may be lower tech than conventional tank-on-tank warfare, the decision to send 30k new soldiers to Afghanistan provides enourmous oppurtunities for lots of American companies to make money that they wouldn't have had if there wasn't a new war to fight. Who is building them housing? Who is making them money transporting them to the theater of operations? One US soldier costs about a million USD per year to maintain -- where do you think that money is going to?

2) Here's a list of the companies that "support" CNAS:
http://www.cnas.org/support

Does anyone really think that it's a coincidence that Abu Muqawama and CNAS have been loudly pushing for expanded war in Afghanistan for at least the last year or so? Would all of those companies be so supportive if CNAS wasn't so pro-war? Would a certain blogger have been so warmly embraced by CNAS if he wasn't so strongly in favor of escalation in Afghanistan? Do you really think that McChrsytal would have invited you on that trip to Afghanistan if you weren't going to turn around and support the operation? Or if you didn't have a reputation as "friendly" from his perspective?

Hell, yes, and I don't know why we pay soldiers, come to that. If they really believed in what they were doing, they'd do it for free, or even pay the government for the privilege of serving! Actually, why does anyone in any sector take pay from the government, have they no national pride?!

Yglesias needs to realize one thing; anyone that rides the green line daily will eventually become an advocate for population-centric COIN.

"Exum, you misread Yglesias's post. What he's saying is that "smart honest people" who sincerely hold opinions that defense contractors like will get funding, and thus end up with a louder voice than "smart honest people" who hold opinions that are inconvenient for defense contractors. He is not accusing you of being a shill, he's saying that you likely have a larger impact on defense policy debates because of the systemic bias in favor of defense policies that make people money."

I think this is spot on and I think the substantive point is largely indisputable.

Also, CNAS isn't really being singled out here (or if it is, it's only because they've been SO successful at shaping current defense policy). I don't think we could name a single security-focused program at a think tank that doesn't have a close relationship to the defense industry. It's fair to question what effect that has on the policy debate.

Arrgh, Visitor above ranting about the technocratic-elite was me, naturally.

"I don't think we could name a single security-focused program at a think tank that doesn't have a close relationship to the defense industry. It's fair to question what effect that has on the policy debate" - Joshua Foust

Voluntary disclosure would be the healthiest thing, but of course, those asking for voluntary disclosure might turn around and accuse you of all sorts of things. Still, an industry is more likely to be respected if it does this. What do you all think?

"Exum, you misread Yglesias's post. What he's saying is that "smart honest people" who sincerely hold opinions that defense contractors like will get funding, and thus end up with a louder voice than "smart honest people" who hold opinions that are inconvenient for defense contractors. He is not accusing you of being a shill, he's saying that you likely have a larger impact on defense policy debates because of the systemic bias in favor of defense policies that make people money."

"Also, CNAS isn't really being singled out here (or if it is, it's only because they've been SO successful at shaping current defense policy). I don't think we could name a single security-focused program at a think tank that doesn't have a close relationship to the defense industry. It's fair to question what effect that has on the policy debate."

These are exactly right. In the same way that we should question how news is influenced by corporate advertisement money, it's not an unfair question to ask what influence the corporate, defense, and think-tank relationships have on policy and strategic debates. There seems to be a systemic bias favoring escalation and perpetual war.

"Also, CNAS isn't really being singled out here (or if it is, it's only because they've been SO successful at shaping current defense policy). I don't think we could name a single security-focused program at a think tank that doesn't have a close relationship to the defense industry. It's fair to question what effect that has on the policy debate."

Well, yes. But that's a systemic critique, whereas both Nathan and Matt decided to extend it to the work of individual analysts, which is much more of a stretch.

But let's stop and consider this for a moment. When Josh writes that he can't name "a single security-focused program at a think tank that doesn't have a close relationship to the defense industry," he's correct. And that's because the defense industry is very good at hedging its bets. But it also means that there's no coherent agenda being funded or advanced. It's perfectly true that the defense industry confines its contributions to analysts of security issues, and doesn't, for example, funnel its largesse to those who prefer to focus on, say, improving the health and welfare of residents of the developing world. But then, neither do pharmaceutical companies fund security studies.

So what is the defense industry buying for its money? A few things, and they're all important. They're purchasing access to some of the best minds in their area. Sometimes, when these people advance to government post, they may have purchased a residual degree of good will. And they're purchasing sustained and serious study of defense issues, and funding their prominent discussion. That's ultimately good for business. But what they're not purchasing is any particular approach. That's partly a strategic decision - it doesn't make sense for large, diversified defense firms to place all their bets on one horse, because when things inevitably shift, they'd be in trouble. And it's partly a structural result - these dollars go through an administrative umbrella that insulates the actual analysts, to a degree, and prevents the firms from dictating outcomes or agendas.

COIN, on the whole, is not great for defense companies, even when it leads to surging forces. It focuses more resources on paying uniformed personnel, and less on expensive and lucrative weapons systems. But it also presents opportunities. Defense firms lack the power to set strategy, but they do have the ability to optimally situate themselves to make the best of strategic shifts. That's what's happened at CNAS. These firms are unhappy about the direction in which CNAS has pushed strategy, but recognizing the shift as important and inevitable, they're scrambling to throw money at CNAS anyway. It's a little like financial firms donating to Barney Frank: they'd rather Bachus were in charge, but since he's not, it's still worth throwing money at Frank in the hope of salvaging what they can. They're not going to forestall regulatory reform, but they may be able to buy a hearing for their concerns and objections, and that's better than nothing.

So the questions being raised are both important, and wrong. It's vital that we recognize the attempt to purchase influence, to associate firms with leading voices so that they can benefit from their prestige and access, and to subtly shape the direction of policy. But when critics like Nathan and Matt take this too far, and suggest that donations from corporations are capable of changing minds or radically altering the course of the debate, they just sound silly and undermine their own case. These firms donate across the board so that they can make the best of whatever policy turns out to be favored at a given moment. They're not driving strategy - they're simply cashing in, irrespective of what it may be.

" I don't think we could name a single security-focused program at a think tank that doesn't have a close relationship to the defense industry."

It doesnt strike me that Brookings or Carnegie have anywhere near the same degree of connections to the Defense Industry. And is it a coincidence that you don't find the same degree of war chearleading?

This will always be a hot topic. It is about taxpayer money. People have a right to know how it is spent.

Good thing we live in America, so we can have this open discussion. Try it in Iran and see what happens.

I worked for a defense contractor not on the CNAS "list", but we were a sub-contractor to a lot of them. Our "product" went into F22, Hellfire, Trident, Space Shuttle, and a whole lot more. Also did some consulting work for a company that makes speciality small arms for the Navy. It is a large community and network of people. Puts a lot of food on people's tables. Money into all our pockets in some form or another. The people who demonize defence work benefit too. I cannot think of any person whom I worked with that wanted war or hurting people. When it came time for our government to take care of a problem, we were proud to have served in our country's defense.

Sort of an odd ball happening. Had a mechanic work on my truck few years back. When the mechanic was not speaking to me, he was speaking Russian to a co-worker in the shop. After the work was done, the mechanic and I spoke for a while. He lived in Russia during the cold war years. His wife was doing research at a local university in the US. He had a Master's Degree in engineering. As we went deeper in to our lives, we found that we were working on the same defense issues, but for opposite sides. We verified the health of our families, shook hands, and wished each other a good future. Both of us had good educations, relocated, and were looking for new work.

Everyone that I have met in the industry, on either side, has the same story.

I am glad that I did my job, so you have the freedom to call me evil. Job, well done.

Zak's point is well made, to wit:

"When it came time for our government to take care of a problem, we were proud to have served in our country's defense."

Can the same thing not be reasonably said today re: defense contractors and think tanks?

In fact, I have it on no-good authority the COIN-critics themselves are on the military-industrial-complex payroll! Nothing makes big-arma happier than to see COIN discredited!

Anyone ever wonder (other than Cynic) if perhaps world events and American Interests, as defined by our elected and appointed officials (and the appointments come from the elected and so hence the people) if perhaps events and our perceived and defined interests drive our actions, reactions, and strategy? As opposed to Corporations, the CIA, Military Industrial Complexes, conspiracies etc?

The International Order and all it's pillars collapsed between 1909 and 1949. China, Austro-Hungary, the Ottomans, Imperial Germany, the Italian Monarchy, Spain, the Dutch, all were gone by then. The remnants of the French, British and Portuguese Empires gone over the next three decades. In 1949 it's the two left standing, the USA and the USSR.
By 1989 it's the USA. We basically try and improve our positions as far as extending treaties while drawing down our forces, putting out a few local fires along the way. Missing a growing existential threat to the Post WW2 Liberal International Order, which makes it's intentions quite clear on 9/11.

The Defense manufacturers are just selling a product that we and others want to buy (and will as long as man exists). It could be an asses jawbone or a JDAAM. This is who we are.

If you wanna slam Think Tanks and the Beltway let me help. Let's ask ourselves howsoever did we win wars prior to the post WW2 establishment of RAND, Whiz Kids, Brain Trusts, and the entire Beltway Complex? Because we won those wars. After they are established post WW2/Cold War, we've had a decidedly different record of success.

I want Andrew Jackson back. Or James K. Polk. Both also from Tennessee. Let's take them as role models.

Jackson of course would have handled this problem in very short order.

Given the long list of those who support CNAS (http://www.cnas.org/support) its not about weather its hardware or COIN, its about keeping the war going no matter what.

Exum and Co are not pointing out that most counterinsurgencies in the past 60 years have had a bad track record/outcome at best ( and the successes are as much about the insurgent failing as the COIN working) and at worst been outright failures. No Mr Exum is simply saying what those running the war want to hear (I'm guessing he believes this as well) that COIN can be an alternative to the heavy handed approach thats been going on.

COIN (real COIN not just the old repackaged and re-branded) might work but David Galula once made the point that even if the COIN is successful that does not guarantee that the people might decide to go down that road again in the future or simply switch from insurgency to support for the insurgent at the ballot box.

Exum undoubtedly knows this and if his is supporting genuine COIN then thats something that he must have factored into his calculations but I doubt that many of those who provide $$$ to CNAS have and this is where the problem lies.

Real COIN can and would work as its nation building in a large sense but that in all senses provides for the population politically to choose what they want (not to have puppet government subservient to the occupying power and outside commercial interests) can Andrew honestly say thats what the US wants after eight years of support the regime in Kabul or its action elsewhere in the region? Or for that matter the industries who support CNAS and are also getting rich of the war and would not likely do as well with the peace.

I followed Mr Exum when he blogged and often agreed with most of what he says but as others have pointed out its disingenuous to try and hide the real situation and treat those who read him as if they are unaware of the same things he knows. This is its self compromises him, his blog posts were pretty well known for having the facts and being straight about them, the Wired article didnt put the case as good as it could but the salient points remain and no amount of delusion or self-denial will work in the internet age.

Andrew, you might not be shilling but you can bet that your arguments will get used for ends that you do not intend and given that you seem to know a lot about COIN what makes you think that its going to work in Afghanistan given the past record not just there but in the last 60 years?

Seriously most of the people who read you know the biz or have studied it as well and just the statistical weight of the past is enough to make holes in most of the arguments for COIN in Afghanistan given that they sound like just redressing of the same old COIN ideas from the past and because of the overriding political/economic imperatives that lead to the US being in Middle East to start with run counter to any real COIN ever happening.

Admitting that your being funded by those who make profit of the war and being done with it it doesn't compromise you if you admit your sources (and the likelihood that you being paid by them means that they are going to use your output to drive their own agendas) it just means you know whats going on, denial automatically makes you suspect and while I didnt always agree with what you posted in the past I believed that you were being honest, I (and others) dont think so now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM29PW3sO9c

Madhu -

Don't worry, your voice is distinctive enough I guessed it was you while reading the "Visitor" post, even before I got to the second post.

"Don't worry, your voice is distinctive enough..."

Oh, cr*p. By distinctive, you mean nuts right? Even I think that re-reading some of what I write.

Mr. Exum wrote: "I think this is another case of "they disagree with me on policy, therefore they must be intellectually dishonest. Or, hey, maybe we instead have a different set of assumptions, educations and experiences which lead us toward different conclusions."

It would be nice if Mr. Exum would actually extend that courtesy to others. Before his short "retirement" from blogging, he has been quick to hurl ad hominum attacks instead of addressing the merits of arguments with which he disagrees. A couple of recent examples:

"He Who Shall Not Be Fact-Checked" (Nov. 9th): “My theory is that [Seymour] Hersh's journalism is a little like a 12-gauge shotgun. He just lets it go, and something is bound to hit the target. ... such is his reputation that people only remember the articles of his that actually exposed something new and none of the articles that, in retrospect, turned out to be just crazy talk.”

"On Martial Virtue ... and Selling Jon Krakauer's Crappy New Book" (Nov. 2nd): "A few months ago, I was asked to review Jon Krakauer's new book by the Washington Post… Alas, the book was awful. I mean, it was really bad. … So Krakauer wrote a crappy book, and now he has to market it. And how is he doing that? By going after Stan McChrystal, who is probably the least culpable guy in Tillman's chain of command for any of the stupid things that happened in the aftermath of his death. … in the eyes of Krakauer and on the fringes of the American left, soldiers are either victims of circumstance or war criminals in waiting.… Stan McChrystal is one of the finest men I have ever known, and I hope I have sons who serve under men like him.

Previously, I've addressed Mr. Exum's close personal and professional ties with General McChrystal and McChrystal's culpability (as well as that of Senator Webb, NYT Thom Shanker, etc) in the Tillman case at feralfirefighter.blogspot.com. I believe Mr. Exum is either woefully ignorant of the most basic facts of the Tillman story or is awfully good at feigning self-righteous anger.

Quite possibly, Mr. Exum believes his own BS. As the saying goes, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

"Jackson of course would have handled this problem in very short order."

I'd submit that, even better, Jackson never would have had us draining ourselves by chasing rainbows abroad (cough, globocop/social worker) in the first place.

Guess that is the essence of of conflict. Our way is better than yours.

It can be played out here in AM or on the battle fields of Afghanistan.

The more people involved, the more arguments/tools are collected to prepare for the process. The more expensive the endeavor is.

Some come more prepare than others. Others are so prepared that they can no longer engage, too involved in the preparation or too narrow in scope.

We are humans, we learn as we go. No conflict will ever be exactly the same as the last. That gives each new conflict a different rules set. Exum, like anyone, when called to give input into a collective wisdom, gave what he had in the best way he knew how. That is information and we as people will pay for ideas, there is nothing wrong in that process and is not unique to this situation. Both Hodge and Yglesias get paid for their ideas.

The one bias that I see in this time line is that 9/11 should never have happened.

Military decisions are authoritarian, don't shoot the messenger.

The American public pay both Obama and Pelosi six figure salaries, if you want to go into gain for pain. In the case of Obama, Americans will pay well into his retirement. Both have a staff of people available to them, all are paid. If there was a true bias in the system, it was at the top because the folks that make the last call are paid to ask for more information.

The question is. Will Obama take the "buck stops here" mind set or the Pelosi, "We were mislead". It is not about Bush anymore.

In the end, you tell me who has the most to gain.

Lol. There is a pressing argument that there should be a wellfunded red-team thinkthank. Call it the Van Riper Institute (VAI) or something and hire black block thinkers to provide you opposition. The Kilcullen doctrine, or maybe the Asimov/Foundation doctrine: Trying to manage a total screwup so that there is least damage. The Rumsfeld slow train wreck is still in movement, its like crashtime in Burnout 3.

Seriously, you thinkthanks are all so echochamber-like, Abu M is the only one I have seen that has a guy like Londonstani. Your discussions are echochambers, not serious exchnages of pro and counter arguments. Tehre is a hollowness that is far removed from practical day to day running. Read Old Blue at afghanquest.com, he reports that still the incoming forces are not prepped in COIN 101. It sounds frustrating.

To all,
COIN policy is fundamentally Anti- American in philosohy and execution.
I have written against the PWOT/COIN since day 1 and will continue to do so. My blog does not carry the weight of some of the sites but my position is one of good faith and I do not receive money from anyone. No one.!
The only sound bites we see or hear on MSM are from people that are paid to shill whether for or against.
Let's get down to reality- screw each and every one of us- the key is -WHAT GOOD IS COIN to Americans struggling for survival. How many children in America are hungry each and every day. The questions and answers are about America and not nation building b/c COIN tells us it's good. I don't care about racism in England or anywhere else. My focus is America.
I think there's an awful lot of intellectual dishonesty out there. For one there was a lot of tap dancing around the topic of compensation. Where is the money that keeps ABU M afloat coming from. Bottom line.
jim at Rangeragainstwar.com