Nervy arguments, indeed

Thomas Ricks’ “The Best Defense” blog highlights new, “nervy” arguments made by Colin Gray. The article, which appeared in the latest issue of Parameters (the U.S. Army War College’s quarterly magazine) claims the following:

1. A war between the U.S. and China is “quite likely.”
2. People fret about terrorism the same way that Chicken Little worried about the sky falling. “Compared to interstate war, terrorism … is a minor menace.”
3. “NATO-Russian relations are an accident waiting to happen.”

Gutsy indeed. I think Gray is wrong on all counts. Maybe I’m overly idealistic, but I just can’t see it happening. Yes, China’s growing cyberwarfare capabilities are a threat to U.S. security, and the two countries differ over issues of development and human rights. But I’m not convinced those differences outweigh our similarities (read: both countries just want to get rich). China’s politics may differ from America’s, but that’s not to say they’re necessarily in direct competition.

John Nagl, a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, one of the nation’s foremost counterinsurgency thinkers and a senior fellow at CNAS, has argued that the U.S. military has given up only about three percent of its conventional warfighting capability — for a 300 percent increase in its capacity to fight unconventional wars. Even if interstate war is really more important than low-intensity conflict, the U.S. is still more than prepared for a conventional fight. And the payoff we’ve had from redirecting our resources to learn about unconventional warfare have been massive, enough to make them a valuable pursuit in themselves.

NATO’s recent olive branch extended to Russia suggests relations are improving, not worsening. Despite the historically tense ties between the alliance and Moscow, I don’t think a Russia-NATO partnership is out of the question. If NATO can get Russia to become a net security provider instead of a security liability (maybe even bring Russia on board as a member!) that will mean huge gains for European and Asian security. And that would be a bonus for NATO, who’s looking to justify its relevance in the post-Cold War age. A bonus, too, for Russia — they get to be part of the club that all the popular countries are in. Everybody wins.

Some of us still don’t get the message about counterinsurgency

In the wake of an investigation into a July 13 gun battle in Afghanistan that left nine U.S. soldiers dead and 27 wounded, Thomas Ricks offers this potential lesson for would-be counterinsurgency leaders:

Counterinsurgency can’t be conducted piecemeal. You are either doing the full-court press — or you are not doing counterinsurgency. Just dropping troops into a hostile neighborhood is not COIN.

The local battalion commander didn’t realize that, Ricks says, and crticizes him for trying to “leapfrog” into the area.

True counterinsurgency requires a broad-based strategy, using not just military force (hard power) but also diplomacy (soft), infrastructure construction (soft) and rapport-building with the local population (soft).