COUNTER-INSURGENCY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE. I think Matt is missing the point of the renewed emphasis on counter-insurgency doctrine in the U.S. military. Matt's focus is on the Iraq campaign, and he's making two arguments. First, not invading Iraq would have been a better idea than developing an outstanding counter-insurgency strategy. Second, bad counter-insurgency is one of the things that the "incompetence dodgers" most often mention when they want to explain why Iraq failed. I actually agree with Matt on both of these points, but the issue of counter-insurgency doctrine has implications that go well beyond the Iraq campaign. The United States military is completely dominant in high intensity warfare. Consequently, any potential foes are likely to develop asymmetric strategies, including insurgency campaigns and guerilla tactics. The next war that the United States fights, justified or no, is likely to be a counter-insurgency campaign. Given this, the military ought to be thinking seriously about how such campaigns can be fought and won. It could be argued that we should prefer an Army that�s inadequate at counter-insurgency because having an organization that�s good at its job might lead us to engage in more wars, but I don�t agree. Competence in government, and belief that a good government can effect positive change in society, stand at the core of the liberal progressive vision of politics, and should extend to our military forces. While we should avoid those wars we can, the Army should be good at the kinds of war that the United States is most likely to fight.
--Robert Farley
