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.