The COIN Conundrum: The Future of Counterinsurgency and U.S. Land Power

Abstract : The debate over counterinsurgency (COIN), seemingly dormant since the end of the Vietnam War, has been rekindled by the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since the 2006 publication of the U.S. Army/Marine Corps Field Manual (FM) 3-24, Counterinsurgency, practitioners and scholars have argued over the efficacy of COIN. Supporters insist that the new approach outlined in the manual led to the creation ofa strategy that defeated the Iraqi insurgents between 2006-2009. Critics argue that the surge of 30,000 additional troops, robust conventional operations, and the end of the Shia uprisingnot a new COIN strategycaused violence in Iraq to decline dramatically. They point to the failure of the campaign in Afghanistan as further evidence that COIN does not work. In an era of declining Pentagon budgets, this debate has significant implications for U.S. land forces. This monograph considers the place of COIN in U.S. Army doctrine, training, and resource allocation. It begins with a brief overview of the U.S. militarys historical experience combating insurgency before considering the recent campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. The monograph then examines in detail the contemporary, scholarly, and professional debate over the efficacy of COIN and its place in U.S. defense planning. Recognizing that consideration of this important issue must be grounded in an examination of the contemporary security environment, the monograph reviews official threat assessments. It then considers the current U.S. military capacity for addressing identified threats. That capacity includes force structure, doctrine, and learning institutions.

[1]  Amy Belasco,et al.  Troop Levels in the Afghan and Iraq Wars, FY2001-FY2012: Cost and Other Potential Issues , 2009 .

[2]  David H. Petraeus,et al.  Learning Counterinsurgency: Observations from Soldiering in Iraq , 2006 .

[3]  K. Jackson Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya , 2006 .

[4]  K. Eikenberry The Limits of Counterinsurgency Doctrine in Afghanistan , 2013 .

[5]  P. Rich The Political Impossibility of Modern Counterinsurgency , 2015 .

[6]  G. Wilson,et al.  Anatomy of a Successful COIN Operation: OEF-Philippines and the Indirect Approach , 2006 .

[7]  John A. Nagl Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam , 2002 .

[8]  J. Russell Counterinsurgency American style: Considering David Petraeus and twenty-first century irregular war , 2014 .

[9]  Andrew Feickert,et al.  U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF): Background and Issues for Congress , 2007 .

[10]  Richard J. Norton The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power , 2003 .

[11]  Hy S. Rothstein,et al.  Less is more: the problematic future of irregular warfare in an era of collapsing states , 2007 .

[12]  M. Lawrence The Vietnam War: A Concise International History , 2008 .

[13]  Huw Bennett Minimum force in British counterinsurgency , 2010 .

[14]  David H. Ucko Counterinsurgency in El Salvador: the lessons and limits of the indirect approach , 2013 .

[15]  Steve Leonard,et al.  The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One , 2009 .

[16]  Timothy K. Deady Lessons from a Successful Counterinsurgency: The Philippines, 1899-1902 , 2005, The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters.

[17]  K. Sepp Best Practices in Counterinsurgency , 2005 .

[18]  Benjamin Schwarz,et al.  American counterinsurgency doctrine and El Salvador : the frustrations of reform and the illusions of nation building , 1991 .

[19]  Charles C Krulak,et al.  The Strategic Corporal: Leadership in the Three Block War , 1999 .