This Week at War, No. 23

The era of "persistent irregular conflict," if that is what we are in, will not occur in European or Asian capitals, but at forward operating bases and combat outposts. In these cases, the interlocutors of U.S. diplomats and development specialists will in many cases be tribal and non-state groups rather than government officials.

Is there any reason to think we are in an era where we will persist in irregular combat among tribal and non-state groups?

One rationale is 9/11. The theory is that tribal people can provide a base to teach advanced espionage and sabotage, that people trained in these areas -- without flush toilets or EFT stations -- can then hide in US cities long enough to commit giant atrocities. But this is utter bullshit. If we are vulnerable to hi-tech sabotage then anybody who has access to the sabotage mehods can attack us. Anybody. Our job is then to become less vulnerable, not to occupy every third-world hellhole where we think training bases are possible.

A second rationale is oil and other vital resources. If we need the resources and tribal people are sitting on them, then we might feel it useful to do COIN to suppress the people who might otherwise interfere with our extracting those resources. But this is short-sighted. Better to find the minimum group of natives that can protect the resources from the rest and recognise them as a nation. They can suppress the rest, or give them a share -- whatever they think will work. If they get caught up in a destructive internal war that interferes with exports then they lose. If the USA winds up with extensive military forces doing COIN it means the locals we're supporting are too small and weak a group and we ought to be supporting a larger coalition, one that can win without a lot of foreign troops.

Is there a third rationale? Well, maybe a strategic location, and we suppress the locals so we can keep our bases there? I guess our atrocities in the philippines were for that. So, we need the strategic locations so we can threaten somebody else, and the COIN is a minor preventive thing? The bases can't be valuable enough for the COIN turns into a big deal for itself.

Then there's the ideological thing. Somebody else is being undemocratic so it's our responsibility to force them to be better for sheer morality.

Is there any particular reason to think that after the current aberrations are settled, that we'll persist in any of this?