Is Counterinsurgency the Right Path in Afghanistan?
The strategy seeks to turn local populations against insurgents by providing protection and building trust. But it takes time, troops, and cash. Can it be more effective in the long run than counterterrorism or other methods that cost less and may cause fewer casualties?
Edited by Steve St. Angelo
Yes
By James Danly
Veteran of the Iraq war and managing director at the Institute for the Study of War
Counterterrorism certainly has its role in Afghanistan, but it must be viewed as but one tool in our toolbox. In order to declare victory, we need to aid the Afghans in establishing a legitimate government whose population does not effectively support terrorist networks. Although it may be attractive to envision an operation that puts fewer men's lives at risk and costs less money, simply put, a pure counterterrorism approach does not go far enough. The only viable course is to commit the resources necessary to conduct a full-spectrum counterinsurgency of the kind employed to such great effect during the surge in Iraq.
No
By Gian P. Gentile
U.S. Army colonel and West Point professor of history
"Counterinsurgency" has become the new American way of war. A once obscure theory of internal conflict, it has become ubiquitous in military circles and dominates thinking on both current and future wars. Examinations and discussions of counterinsurgency theory pervade conferences, journals, study agendas, and even human interest stories about its chief exponents; journalists and pundits routinely toss the term about as if its meaning is well understood by all. More important, its precepts are being followed without serious inquiry or examination, and the U.S. military has become so....
What do you think?
Reader Comments
afghanistan
Just leave!!! Get out!!! we are the occupiers. This is another Vietnam. I voted for Obama, but if he does not get out of Aghanastan, myself and a lot of Dmeocrates will vote for a liberal candidate that will get us out
USSR / USA / Afganistan history.....
Securing Afganistan? Look at history -- 1980's USSR, and keep going back for 6,000 years. It cannot be done in Afganistan. Just nuke them and be done with it.
Wow. What a nightmare.
While generally in support of the United States military, a counterinsurgency strategy sounds like...well...gambling.
Managing groups of people is much like herding cats, let alone adding in the additional variable of a whole new coalition (well, at least you hope they work together!) of people to turn against troublesome elements.
It sounds like a recipe for more uncertainty and chaos.
Having supported the efforts of the offensive in the past, isn't it about time closure was brought to this entire effort? We (the US, that is) seem to be spinning our wheels, yet getting nothing done.
There needs to be a Middle Eastern version of NATO to handle regional affairs so that superpowers no longer has to play Globocop.
We (meaning the US) cannot afford this anymore.
Figure out a workable strategy, or get us out already. It's time. And this from a strong supporter of past efforts, too! Everyone is getting tired of the endless war that won't be won. And it's stretching the US military thin.
: (
advertisement
