Total COIN

Americans think of themselves collectively
as a huge rescue squad on twenty-four-hour call
to any spot on the globe
where dispute and conflict may erupt
--Eldridge Cleaver

Sometimes I wonder if the world is run
by smart people who are putting us on,
or by imbeciles who really mean it
--Mark Twain
_________________

LTC (R) Ralph Peters recent article in September Armchair General is vague and muddles historical and military facts (Sound Bites Kill/Crisis watch).

Peters says killing is a measure of success in counterinsurgencies, using Roman and Russian examples to prove his point. However, the wars he refers to were actually rebellions (which Peters admits.) An insurgency would evolve into a rebellion at some point, if a legitimate government were present.

The British were not fighting insurgents in India because the Brits were not the legitimate government. As the Brits were colonial rulers, the people had the right and obligation to oppose their externally imposed rule much as we did in our American Revolution. In fact, the Indians had the better claim for self-rule.

Revolutions are not insurgencies, although there in interplay between the concepts.

Mao Zedong did not defeat the Nationalists in an insurgency, but rather open, conventional war. Mao's heavy firepower reflects conventional versus counterinsurgency tactics; suggesting otherwise is nonsensical.

Peters says historical records show that defeating insurgencies has been 90% military in concept and execution, but where is his data? If an insurgency is indigenous and legitimate, then military means will never defeat insurgents. Peters gives no examples to the contrary. Peters cuts police and legal means out of the COIN lexicon, which is non-doctrinal and ignores the realities of insurgencies.

Police action is always a more useful tool than is military action. Police action posits legitimacy if properly employed.

Not all insurgencies are bad. History illustrates U.S. support of insurgencies in Cuba, which led to our involvement in the Spanish-American War. The U.S. further supported insurgents in its acquisition of the rights to the Panama Canal Zone, and supported the Contras in the 1980's.

The word insurgent is not necessarily bad, and one must bear in mind that U.S. COIN policy is not aimed at insurgencies against the U.S., but now rather against citizens of dubious client states. And to what end?

Peters, like most military types, talks of victory, but without being able to clearly define the concept. He ignores some obvious realities, like the fact that the Roman, British, French, Russian, Ottoman and Habsburg empires have one thing in common: all saw their greatness flicker in large part due to military overreach. It is not so far back in the memory's vault that the Soviet Union fell immediately after their defeat in Afghanistan.

Peters also fails to mention how the U.S. will pay for these meddling COIN operations, but that doesn't trouble his acolytes. For the chickenhawks, such exigencies are of little matter. Peters remains their darling, keeping their battle blood up, which is all that's required.

On FOX news recently, Peters called upon the Taliban to dispense with the deserter (in his summary judgment), Bowe Bergdahl, saving the U.S. so very much in legal bills. He is brilliantly feeding off the Hanoi Jane residue, which is alive and well. The preemptive murder, carried out by a proxy -- fits in so well with the U.S.'s new jurisprudence.

It is all so easy from the armchair.