Robust Debate at CNAS
Andrew Exum clues us in to the big inter-office controversy at the Center for a New American Security—is counterinsurgency a dangerous distraction from the need for a war with China:
This may surprise some of you, but within the walls of 1301 Pennsylvania Ave., there is a pretty lively debate among the scholars and staff who work here about whether or not we should continue a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan when we might instead be focusing on preserving our energies for rising powers. Obviously enough, those of us who work on Afghanistan and counterinsurgency feel one way (more or less), while those who work on China and the rest of Asia feel another way (again, more or less — it’s not a black-and-white disagreement)
I suppose you can therefore construct the following esoteric argument in favor of an ambitious COIN strategy in Afghanistan. Such an approach would probably be an unnecessary waste of resources in some absolute sense, but it’s a much better idea than an actively counterproductive anti-Chinese defense buildup would be. So if we assume the military-industrial complex has the ability to extract a more-or-less fixed quantity of resources out of the productive sectors of the economy, difficult COIN missions in backwater regions seems like a relatively benign application of those resources.
Joking aside, it’s worth keeping in mind when you see arguments about counterinsurgency that there are really two different debates happening. One is the debate inside the military and the defense policy establishment which is really a debate about COIN versus non-COIN military activity. Another is a debate about that pertains to the larger question of the strategic and budgetary priorities of the United States. In my experience COIN enthusiasts tend to have the better of the limited argument about the relative allocation of military resources, but generally decline to engage in a serious way with the larger question of national priorities. In other words, a debate that ranges from “we should fight a series of small wars against Muslims” to “we should prepare for a big war against China” is really seen as “lively” rather than incredibly cramped and narrow.
32 Responses to “Robust Debate at CNAS”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 7th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
COIN doesn’t do much for the military-industrial complex, at least the industrial side of it. What industry wants is bright shiny new high-tech weapons systems. Investment in that shit, while suboptimal, at least can lead to civilian spinoff technologies and employees people in high-paying manufacturing jobs. COIN just pays a bunch of contractors and mercenaries.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
COIN seems to be great business for religious crusader mercenary corporations though, so I guess it all evens out.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
COIN seems to be great business for religious crusader mercenary corporations though, so I guess it all evens out.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:16 pm
But the COIN surge worked until Obama lost the war in Iraq!
October 7th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
He didn’t actually say war with China. I sure hope the folks at CNAS are aiming at something more along the lines of having a big military so we don’t have a war with China. That is probably the wrong position, but its really different from a planned 2019 invasion of China.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
War with China is inevitable – Red Dawn – Wolverines!
the remake ( vs China this time ) currently filming in suburban Detroit.
http://www.theoaklandpress.com/articles/2009/09/25/entertainment/doc4abc89f3b1b3d817425268.txt
October 7th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Perhaps the two sides can join forces to create a plan to take out the Gwadar Port.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
He didn’t actually say war with China. I sure hope the folks at CNAS are aiming at something more along the lines of having a big military so we don’t have a war with China. That is probably the wrong position, but its really different from a planned 2019 invasion of China.
Yes, a military budget of nearly 8 times China’s is not NEARLY enough to keep them in their place! More is needed! CNAS doesn’t seem to realize that America is already doing both, preparing for a war with China AND fighting a war in Afghanistan.
October 7th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
This sort of planning was so much less awkward when nations didn’t claim to be pacifists, when they admitted that they had gone to war in the past and were knew they were likely to do the same in the future.
When Victorian Britain made the decision to have a fleet only big enough to make war on the second and third largest fleets, everyone read the intel and knew whose fleets were on the list: the French, the Germans, the Americans, the Russians, and the Italians.
The Japanese were buying cruisers and battleships from Britain, so no one worried about them being the enemy that would drive the Royal Navy from two oceans.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I think we should prepare for a big war with China. Such a war is highly unlikely to happen, but I think the points in favor of preparation are numerous, e.g.:
1) Better safe than sorry.
2) Preparing for a war with China is unlikely to increase the probability of a war with China (and may even decrease it).
3) Military spending on the kind of high-tech research-intensive stuff we’d use to fight China is a LOT better for our economy than COIN spending, which mostly goes toward salary, low-tech equipment purchases, and development aid. Remember, Cold War defense R&D led to the invention of the internet, and a lot of other cool stuff that ended up boosting our economy.
October 7th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Noah, explain to me how they are not already doing all of that. Are you proposing they spend even MORE preparing for unlikely wars than they already do? As I mentioned before, America’s military budget is 8-12 times that of China’s. What amount would satisfy you that they’d be read for a war?
October 7th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Matt:
In other words, a debate that ranges from “we should fight a series of small wars against Muslims”
Didn’t Matt just say Afghanistan was a legitimate “defensive war”? Is that the same as a war of necessity? Are all wars wrong? Is he being petty?
Amhed Rashid wrote in September (last month):
“After Obama’s injection of 21,000 troops and trainers, total Western forces in Afghanistan now number 100,000, including 68,000 US troops. It is likely that General McChrystal will soon ask for more. Obama’s overall plan has been to achieve security by doubling the Afghan army’s strength to 240,000 men and the police to 160,000; but these are tasks that would take at least until 2014 to complete, if indeed they can be carried out. Meanwhile the military operation in Afghanistan is now costing cash-strapped US taxpayers $4 billion a month.
Across the region many people fear that the US and NATO may start to pull out of Afghanistan during the next twelve months despite their uncompleted mission. That would almost certainly result in the Taliban walking into Kabul. Al-Qaeda would be in a stronger position to launch global terrorist attacks. The Pakistani Taliban would be able to “liberate” large parts of Pakistan. The Taliban’s game plan of waiting out the Americans now looks more plausible than ever.
For all these reasons it is important to recognize that if Western forces are to regain the initiative in Afghanistan, they must deal with the situation in Pakistan, which needs to eliminate sanctuaries of both the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban forces within the country. The Pakistani military will bide its time until the Americans are really desperate, and then the army will demand its price from the US—a price to be measured in financial and military support.”
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/23113
October 7th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Noah, explain to me how they are not already doing all of that. Are you proposing they spend even MORE preparing for unlikely wars than they already do? As I mentioned before, America’s military budget is 8-12 times that of China’s. What amount would satisfy you that they’d be read for a war?
I am not suggesting an overall increase in military spending to prepare for a war with China (in fact, I think overall military spending needs to decrease substantially).
I am saying that, given the choice between spending a dollar on COIN and spending it on inventing new high-tech stuff aimed at a possible war with China, we should spend it on the latter.
Basically I think we should do what France and the UK do – have moderate but substantial military budgets mostly geared toward having the highest technology level possible in order to be prepared for a great-power conflict. The alternative – a bloated military constantly tied down in one pseudo-imperial counter-insurgency after another – is what we did during Vietnam and what we’re doing now, but I think we did much better during the 90s with an approach similar to the one I described above.
October 7th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Obviously enough, those of us who work on Afghanistan and counterinsurgency feel one way (more or less), while those who work on China and the rest of Asia feel another way (again, more or less — it’s not a black-and-white disagreement)
Is the point that if Exum is willing to grant this much to his non-COIN officemates, we can assume he’ll now be available to criticize people who say the President should automatically accept whatever the Commander, USFOR-A says?
October 7th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The argument at CNAS more than likely boils down to, on the one hand, the non-batshit insane Nagl vs. Gentile debate over traditional warfighting vs. COIN, and, on the other hand, Robert Kaplan wanting to invade China because it would be just so awesome.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
If we can ever obviate their nukes the Chinese need to be curbed.
The idea of a superpower that does what China does to the internet and has brainwashed its citizens to believe they are too stupid and reckless to have a democracy is terrifying, even more so than our system where our citizens actually ARE too stupid and reckless to have a democracy but have one anyway and feel superior for being stupid and reckless.
We suck, but man… that’s just in another league.
October 7th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
How’s that working out, Mr. President? Has the ‘mindset’ changed, especially in your trusted CNAS group?
October 7th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
China is not stupid. They will not enter the ring. The boxing ring. That’s were we want em, in the ring with boxing gloves, Marcus of Queensbury rules applying. That’s how we beat the Soviets. Got em the ring, out boxed them, and then knocked them out.
China will not fall into our trap. It will make its moves on the periphery of this make believe world. It will play the role of Don King. It will let us prepare for what we perceive is an inevitable mano y mano showdown in the ring. China will never enter the ring, except, of course, like Don King, to sneak under the ropes while America is shadow boxing with phantoms -and steal our purse.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
The wars of the 20th century are long gone. There will never again be grand struggles with armies and navies fighting to the near death, all over the globe.
Nor, if China so chooses, will there be a reprise of the Cold War of the late 20th century, a conflict that mirrored earlier wars, without the violence but equally as costly in public treasure.
China is already actively engaged in fighting the new war of the 21st century. This war is strictly about the economic might of a nation-state, and the relative economic power of that nation-state in relation to other nation-states.
China has already easily won the first phase of this war. It is poised to dominate phase two, the determinative phase of relative power in the future. Phase two will obviously be about resources; how best to acquire dwindling external resources and efficiently allocate them, but more importantly, how to produce new energies, internally, to reduce reliance on the always shaky and potentially nation-threatening import category. And, of course, it will equally be about finance, won’t it. About wealth.
An incredibly rich country will dominate a country that is not only broke, but desperately broke, regardless of the dead broke country’s military might. China knows this. China has figured this out.
October 7th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
A small point Max, but its “Marquess of Queensberry rules”, or sometimes “Marquis of Queensbury”.
October 7th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
If we want to be prepared to fight China, we had better beef up cyber security—like with our own hack-proof operating system. If we threatened them with force, they could just quietly turn our lights off.
October 7th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
A war with China, if it were to occur, would only require a modest increace in redources. One of the reasons we havn’t already won in Afganistan is that we can’t bring our technology to bear. Most of our resources in Afganistan are 1) fleash-and-blood soldiers, 2) armored vehicles, and 3) unmaned drones. A war with China would need tanks and bomber planes. in short, resources not currently committed in Afganistan (except for the men).
October 7th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
China has a population problem, and an impending food shortage. Coincidently, India shares these two problems.
I suggest they arrange some sort of mutually beneficial solution to their shared problems, and leave the US out of it.
October 7th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
China has a population problem, and an impending food shortage. Coincidently, India shares these two problems . . . I suggest they arrange some sort of mutually beneficial solution to their shared problems, and leave the US out of it.
Why should they do that when are so willing to shovel them all the wealth and power we managed to accumulate in the 20th Century, and at bargain prices?
I mean, did we turn down all the wealth and power Europe accumulated in the 19th Century and then shoveled into our trough by fighting two world wars?
While I don’t doubt the Chinese leaders are actively plotting to regain the economic superpower status China had before the Manchu dynasty rotted away, they could not do so without our suicidally destructive warmongering, short-sighted industrial policy, tsunami level deficit spending, and general financial and political incompetence.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:37 am
Anyone remember the first few months of the Bush presidency? Chinese and US ships crashing in to each other, US spy planes being forced to land, US newspapers and websites having articles about the impending threat of China, etc.
All those problems of course quickly disappeared after 9/11, but it shows there has already been one attempt to start a cold war with China. To me it seems inevitable that there will be more attempts and at some point one will succeed.
Also China’s military 50 year plan from a few years back showed that they intend to improve their military until it is able to defeat the US in an informationized war. If the US wants to defeat China in a war it will have to do so in a few decades, otherwise it will result either in a stalemate or a loss for the US. The huge difference in population will mean that the US at some point will not be able to keep up with China. As it is in China’s favor to delay war as long as possible, they will not be the aggressors, so the war will be fought on Chinese soil.
If there is not to be an all out war between the two then the contenders will start to run out of some resources. Although food production will probably keep growing swift enough to match population growth, other resources, especially rare metals, will be increasingly harder to find, and they are necessary for high tech industries. Lack of these resources will lead to proxy-wars in resource rich countries in Africa, which requires COIN-capable forces.
In short: the decision to go for either COIN or non-COIN forces depends on how the resource competition with China will be tackled. Either an all out attack on China’s mainland within the next 20 years, or continually fighting Afghanistan-style wars 40-100 years from now.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:52 am
China and Russia have been doing joint military exercises for a few years. China seems to be getting along quite well with most of its neighbors. I think it would be a mistake to think that getting in a pissing match with China would be limited to a U.S. vs. China pissing match. Don’t think everyone believes our hype about being the greatest military machine in the world. Hope our leadership knows better. We’d run out of silver long before they ran out of soldiers anyway.
October 8th, 2009 at 1:20 am
People always attribute some mystical strength to the other great power that is in no way justified. Russia was assumed to be a giant red bear, when in reality it was kind of a sickly, coughing bear. China will be far, far, FAR more concerned with keeping their own people in line than they will be with launching massive intercontinental wars. They require constant growth in order to keep their people satisfied. And the leadership knows, mass unemployment would likely be the end of their government. Read James Fallows’ blog, he has lived for a long time in China, and I think he would mostly agree.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:31 am
Aqua Regia
re: James Fallows
The blog has a short video of the 60th anniversary parade in Beijing. Have you seen it? It’s quite striking. The first half of the parade is old school; tanks and missile launchers and other hardware rolling past the reviewing stand, and the obligatory marching troops from the various services -including a battalion of goosestepping women warriors, each clutching a semi-automatic, dressed in form hugging red skirts, white boots and white berets (a deadly looking formation I shockingly found -a tad erotic). Anyway.
The parade becomes, the second half of it, all brightly colored jet smoke, flowers and floats. I know it way more complex than this, but it is almost as if the Chinese are saying, “we can play old games, if necessary, but look, this is what we really prefer.”
October 8th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Yes, what I found interesting was what Fallows was saying about the tanks, and the uniform goose-stepping soldiers. Displays of power and precision like those aren’t for the outside world to see, but for their own citizens. In a way, the tanks and soldiers show a kind of weakness. The floats show China’s strength.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:41 am
@20 Aqua Regia: “A small point Max, but its “Marquess of Queensberry rules”, or sometimes “Marquis of Queensbury”.”
Holy crap. Thank you. Marcus of Queensbury. Who was he? It sounds like a Roman legionnaire that got lost in time.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:56 am
Aqua Regia —I agree. One thing I found odd about the mobile hardware rolling by was how many bright colors had been painted in. I’m guessing it was just for parade, but powder blue missiles? And the huge fuel trucks had whitewall tires! Weird.
I like this from Fallows.
“As anyone watching in real time can attest, the appearance of this troupe was the first time that Hu Jintao, from the reviewing stand, broke into anything that looked like a relaxed expression:”
October 8th, 2009 at 11:54 am
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
Albert Einstein
Which is better – preventing or preparing?