In reference to Iraq, President Obama promised that “no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.” Is he unaware that the United States imposed democracies after World War II?
After the defeat of German Nazism, Italian fascism, and Japanese militarism, Americans — by force — insisted that these nations adopt democratic governments, for both their own sakes and the world’s. Indeed, it is hard to think of too many democratic governments that did not emerge from violence — including our own.
That from Victor Hanson regarding a listing he did of examples of Obama playing fast and loose with facts of history in his Magic Muslim speech - fine, but I was struck by last sentence, in so much as dovetails with something I was reading about the purposes of COIN - as in, COIN may be a viable tactic, but to what end? To wit: let's say a proper application of COIN tactics secures Afghanistan, then what? Babysit the country for a couple of generations until...? The point being, what is the strategic relevance of COIN if, as with Afghanistan, the Taliban is defeated but the state remains broken, dysfunctional? Can COIN really be considered the better way if what it results in is of dubious utility?
I think the point trying to be made here is, what if instead of the utter destruction of the Nazis we had engaged in a long, drawn out counter insurgency against roving bands of Waffen SS etc while some distilled National Socialist government went about pretending various reforms etc - what would victory have looked like as compared to the destruction that did happen? Would victory as we now know it have even been possible?
The point being I think - proponents of COIN seem to want to think of it as 'war, new and improved', or war made rational - but maybe in trying to fit it into that box you strip it of it's ultimate value as an uprooter of the status quo - maybe the irrational component is necessary - although irrational doesn't seem like the right word.
