American Prospect offers a look at the development of counterinsurgency doctrine. Some of the analysis is highly debatable. One particularly interesting tidbit is that defense guru Edward Luttwak favors junking the Afghan war for reasons and in favor of a strategy I agree with:

“What the fuck are we doing there?” he asks. “Much better to abandon it and do occasional punitive expeditions as opposed to counterinsurgency and its enormous costs. I’ve been to Afghanistan. Basically, you’d have to kill every single Afghan and take all the children and put them in boarding school, preferably in England.”

Reply to Lindgren

In reviewing Jim Lindgren’s response to my criticism of his post on a “civilian national security force,” one thing stands out: He never addressed my suspicion that he was unaware of the debate, led by our current secretary of defense, that’s been going on about the need to beef up the civilian, non-military infrastructure for counterinsurgency. 

Jim is right that I came late to his half of the discussion. I read Volokh Conspiracy two or three times a week, and it so happened that July 19, when Jim first posted on the issue, was not one of those days. The lead item for the day happened to be a post on the exclusionary rule that I caught a day or so later, but Jim’s post I missed until he called it to my attention. Nor did I see any of the blog commentary he references.

That said, I’m not late to the discussion Robert Gates has been spearheading. I read both of his key speeches on the issue within a week of their delivery, and had been following the issue via Thomas Barnett’s books and blog well before that.

Reading Jim’s original post, it’s clear he just didn’t have any of that background. He’s genuinely puzzled as to what Obama might’ve meant. 

Now, I can understand why reviewing Obama’s speech might not have cleared things up for him. Watching the video, the line in question is a throw-in, awkwardly delivered over the applause still coming in for the line before it. 

But in context, it made sense. Obama started by calling for an expansion of the Army. He followed by talking about Americorps for a minute or so, and then came back to the national security angle:

And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered, and double the size of Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy.

Now have a gander at something Robert Gates said last Nov. 26, in the first of his two key speeches on the issue:

Funding for non-military foreign-affairs programs has increased since 2001, but it remains disproportionately small relative to what we spend on the military and to the importance of such capabilities. … The total foreign affairs budget request for the State Department is $36 billion – less than what the Pentagon spends on health care alone. Secretary Rice has asked for a budget increase for the State Department and an expansion of the Foreign Service. The need is real.

Despite new hires, there are only about 6,600 professional Foreign Service officers – less than the manning for one aircraft carrier strike group. And personnel challenges loom on the horizon. By one estimate, 30 percent of USAID’s Foreign Service officers are eligible for retirement this year –- valuable experience that cannot be contracted out.

As for the Peace Corps, Obama in essence said he thinks we need about 16,000 volunteers, twice what we have now. So, at one point, did our current president

WASHINGTON — The Peace Corps, the popular service program that President Bush once promised to double in size, is preparing to cut back on new volunteers and consolidate recruiting offices as it pares other costs amid an increasingly tight budget, according to agency officials.

Obama no sooner uttered the phrase “renew our diplomacy” than the crowd started clapping. Over the noise, he said:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

I quoted sections from Gates’ two speeches in my first post on this point, so I won’t bother repeating them. But for fun, and to show that people didn’t just start thinking about this last Thanksgiving, here’s former Bush administration defense Under Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith, from page 158 of his book “War and Decision”:

There was a gross imbalance between the funds Defense had for the war on terrorism and those appropriated to State to fight the ideological battle. The Secretary of Defense made more noise about this gap than the Secretary of State. It was Rumsfeld who time and again commented that it was far more expensive to capture or kill terrorists than to prevent young people from becoming murderous enemies to begin with. 

Again, when you read Jim’s original post you get no clue about any of this background. Instead, he conflates Obama’s “civilian national security force” into a overbearing mandatory service program that would consume the exact same budget as the Pentagon, $585B, “carve another large slice out of the private sector and assign it to the government,” and be “strangely lacking in proportion and simple common sense.”

Now, I make certain allowances for political hyperbole, on both sides, but this is just over the top. You see Bush administration officials call for beefing up civilian contributions to the national defense. You see Obama do the same. I don’t think Gates (or Feith, or Rumsfeld) believes that would take $585B or threaten the very fabric of our society. I don’t think Barack Obama does either.

Rule, Britannia

The Telegraph reports that UK forces won a major battle in Afghanistan to deliver material to a hydro project. Interesting sidelight:

The Chinese-made turbine will be installed as part of a project funded by the American development agency USAID to increase the output of the Kajaki power plant.

Chinese engineers already on the ground will install the equipment, which will boost the capacity of the plant, built in 1975, to three turbines with an output of 51 MegaWatts. Around 1.8 million Afghans are expected to benefit from the project.

Civil-Military Cooperation

The Navy is in the midst of running a sea-borne aid mission to several Central and South American countries. One facet underscores a point Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been trying to make:

While “Joint ops” is all the rage in military circles these days, Continuing Promise takes the concept one step further, embedding civilians from Operation Hope and Project Smile among the multinational stable of military surgeons, dentists, nurses, optometrists, veterinarians, engineers and Seabees from Canada, Brazil, the Netherlands, and the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. 

Lindgren Responds

Volokh Conspiracy co-blogger Jim Lindgren responded to my post on his recent piece on foreign policy and Obama’s service program in comments. I’m taking the liberty of putting what he had to say up here on the main page to make sure people see it. Time doesn’t permit me to respond further today, but I should get back around to it Wednesday evening.

Here’s Jim:

I understand why you misread my comments, but you did misread them. Back in July, there was a stir about the “Civilian National Security Force’ comments. EVERY blogger who commented on this statement — EXCEPT ME — said they seemed to refer to a new paramilitary organization. I wrote then that they got it wrong: Obama was talking about his national service programs.

Coming late to a discussion, I could see why you would think that my comments were faux generous.

Your second misreading may perhaps result from your not reading the entire thread. I tend to agree with you on US speakers of foreign languages, which is why I questioned the same commenter that you took issue with,

Your strongest (amd most effective comments) are directed at a commenter who objects to recruiting foreign-language speakers. Somehow you seem to attribute that commenter’s view to me. Though I rarely bother to post a comment disagreeing with the many comments I disagree with, in fact I did post disagreeing with the very commenter you attack. Because that part of Obama’s proposal sounded sensible to me, I endorsed the comment of yet another commenter asking what is wrong with increasing foreign speakers abroad.

So your comments are sound in going after that one commenter, but unsound in attributing those views to me. I disagreed with those views in the very thread you attack.

In addition, I do think that mandatory national service programs are contrary to American traditions of national service, as I’ve laid out in several posts, esp. this one, which follows:

Unlike some European systems of the past two centuries, the American tradition is for individuals to form their own diverse communities and for each community to govern itself to the extent possible. Universal national service seems to reverse the direction of this relationship: its goal is to use the government to transform people to fit within the government’s vision of what’s important and how one should serve. Senator Barack Obama makes that government direction clear, promising us that his administration “will direct that service to our most pressing national challenges,” eschewing the traditional American approach of having the government take its direction from the diverse choices of its people.

As de Tocqueville understood, voluntary associations are valuable not merely on account of what they accomplish, either for participants or for others, but also because they establish cultural and political forces in society independent of government. In modern society, and perhaps especially in America, each individual stands alone as an independent citizen in relation to the state, and individuals are therefore peculiarly dependent on voluntary associations to ensure that the state does not acquire a monopoly of cultural and political influence. Voluntary associations help to protect us from what de Tocqueville called “the tyranny of the majority.”

In Mr. Obama’s vision of voluntary organization, however, the government would develop, coordinate, and focus the efforts of private individuals and their associations, which thus would lose their independence and much of their capacity to offer alternatives to the state and its vision of life. Indeed, far from challenging the state and holding it accountable, morally or politically, many private associations would become aligned with the state. Rather than being alternatives to government, they would become its instruments.

One of John Locke’s most important philosophical moves was to posit a state of limited powers. Not all good things must be within the state or be promoted by the state. For example, the sovereign could be persuaded of the good of the “one true religion” and yet could believe that it would be best for the state to be cautious about promoting that religion.

That crucial Enlightenment insight helped end centuries of European religious wars. Among twentieth-century governments, most communist, fascist, and sharia-based regimes rejected that Enlightenment view and tried to bring within their ambit all things that the state considered good – with predictable results for human flourishing and freedom.

A key element in the rise of modern life, both its freedom and its prosperity, was the substitution of taxation for personal services, a development that allowed individuals to spend their time on what they know and love — on tasks in which they have a comparative advantage. Being more productive as a result of this freedom, individuals can spare more of the fruits of their labor for the community.

This move from services in kind to financial payment by taxes was and is a matter of personal liberty. Such a transition was essential if individuals were no longer to be serfs in service to their lord or other communal authorities. Except for a military draft (which should be contemplated only in dire emergencies), individuals these days are mostly free to engage in voluntary activities for the benefit of themselves and others.

Mandatory community service sucks in much that is private and diverse and spits out an excessively homogenized version of the good, a version that would come with a government seal of approval.

It’s probably not an accident that many American groups who tend to favor greater government largesse are relatively stingy in their own donations to charity. Nor do I think it an accident that Americans are the most generous people in the world, while the few European countries that have universal military or community service have populations that fall far short of America’s in donating their time and money to the less fortunate. For charity work to be truly transformative in a positive way, perhaps it must be truly voluntary. That coerced service can be transformative without endangering freedom is even more improbable.

By bringing voluntary charitable activity under government control and by presenting his scheme as a “civilian national security force,” Mr. Obama is breaking down the barriers between private and public life, between individual choice and government programs, between childhood education and adult employment, and between the diversity of freely chosen efforts on behalf of one’s neighbors and subservience to the government’s vision of the good.

Not Invented Here

Some days, you read something and just slap your head in disgust at the failure of otherwise intelligent people to stay current, or at least to know their own limitations. Today, that something was a post on the Volokh Conspiracy. Authored by Volokh co-blogger Jim Lindgren, it imputed shadowy motives to a comment Obama ad-libbed into a July 2 speech. To wit:

We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

Lindgren finds this mysterious. “Many commentators are stumped,” he says, before tying this back to Obama’s several plans for promoting volunteer service with the faux-generous concession that the candidate was referring “neither to the militia nor to a reincarnation of the Brownshirts.” His commenters were not so kind:

These cadres sounds like the brownshirts and hitler youth to me.

Another did a little digging of her own on Obama’s Web site, found something she disliked, and came up with this gem:

“Show the World the Best Face of America: Barack Obama will set up an America’s Voice Initiative within the State Department to rapidly recruit and train Americans who are fluent speakers of local languages (Arabic, Bahasa Melayu, Farsi, Urdu, and Turkish) with public diplomacy skills. These Americans will go overseas to ensure our voice is heard in the mass media and in our efforts on the ground.”

While checking Obama’s position papers to make sure that this article wasn’t some kind of satire, I came across this (above). Someone please tell me that he won’t actually have the power to do this.

At which point I just had to say, Jesus H. Bleeding Christ. 

What Lindgren missed, somewhere along the line, is that there’s been a huge discussion going on in Washington about how much civilian assistance the Pentagon needs when it mounts counterinsurgency efforts in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has given at least two major policy speeches on the subject, both well-noticed, lamenting that the Army has had to, on the fly, find ways to channel civilian expertise on a variety of subjects into the reconstruction and stabilization efforts under way in those countries. He also laments that we developed something of toolset along those lines in the 1960s and then threw it away during the Clinton administration. Here he is in the first of those speeches, given last Nov. 26 at Kansas State University:

What is clear to me is that there is a need for a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security – diplomacy, strategic communications, foreign assistance, civic action, and economic reconstruction and development. Secretary Rice addressed this need in a speech at Georgetown University nearly two years ago. We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen. We must also focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years.

Note that Gates points out he hasn’t been the only senior Bush administration mandarin to talk about this. He returned to the topic on Jan. 26, in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington:

In the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns, one of the most important lessons that has been learned, and to a large extent, relearned is that military success is not sufficient. Our efforts must also address economic development, institution building, the rule of law, promoting internal reconciliation, good or at least decent governance, public services, training and equipping indigenous security forces, effective, strategic communications, and more.  These so-called soft capabilities along with military power are indispensable to any lasting success, indeed, to victory itself as Clausewitz understood it, which is achieving a political objective.

Thomas Barnett has been on the case the last seven years, publishing two books that touch on exactly this point. He continues to pound on it:

Somebody in the [US government] needs to want to pull those skills and resources in as required. Otherwise, all of them will die on the vine during a down time.

So it should be clear that Obama’s comment didn’t just come out of thin air. It is vague, he hasn’t elaborated on it, but the mere fact he addressed the matter shows that he’s current on a major debate on the defense/foreign affairs establishment. To the disservice of his readers (including all those that came his way courtesy a link from Glenn Reynolds), Lindgren seems totally unaware the debate is even occurring and that key people in Bush administration have helped push it in the direction Obama’s talking about.

French Foreign Legion: Let the Afghans Do It

A French lieutenant colonel says Americans are shouldering too much of the counterinsurgency burden in Afghanistan and stunting the development of the Afghan army;

[US forces] generally make operational decision which, without the vigilance of the [Operational Mentoring and Liaison Teams] can sideline the ANA from the decision-making process; these then risk being turned into auxiliaries to the US army. The OMLTs must ensure that the ANA maintains its role and progressively is weaned from its  dependence.

Hat tip: Aviation Week.