3:20AM
'Senator's Son' a Good Window into COIN

National security types have long noted -- and complained about -- the relative lack of military veterans in Congress, which results in too few experienced votes being cast when the prospect of overseas interventions is raised. I have long noted -- and complained about -- the fact that Congress' most prominent military vets hail from the Vietnam era, which has led many to instinctively reject the necessity and utility of conducting nation-building and counterinsurgency. Clearly, our lengthy interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan will alter this generational equation, but how will the experiences of today's veterans impact their votes in tomorrow's Congress?
Reader Comments (11)
A quick google search shows 91 members of the House are veterans (15 combat vets), and 26 Senators (seven combat vets). That's at least double the rate of the general population...
Can any of them survive the election process with their worlds captured forever in Facespace, Tweetland, and blogomania? I think so, and I hope we get some good smart people with some real field experience into high places.
“What these hyperbolic academics rarely address is the follow-on reality -- namely, which side will actually know how to manage the local environment post-conflict? A trifling detail, I know, but one that will separate the real-deal superpowers from the great-power wannabes in the decades ahead.”
The US will/should be able (with the global recognition and global political capital it is gaining through its competent efforts and intelligent dedication in Iraq and Afghanistan) be able to retain its most respected and most trusted superpower status but only in its soon to be new role as the designated go-to-people for day-to-day preventive and occasional conflict intervention and resolution as global manager of conflict and especially post-conflict system administration and development. The subtext is as always that it is foreseeable that the US won’t/can’t be (with the New Core developing as it is and should be) the strongest economy globally and sole military global Leviathan forever. (All of this is very probable but maybe not as near-inevitable as other of Tom’s insightful projections.)
Further, as a Marine who served in IZ, I know plenty of guys who have "been there" and still don't know what they're talking about. Lots of selective reinforcement of preexisting notions going around. Having fought in a war could be helpful to many decisionmakers, but it's not a magic pill.
I should have been more clear on that. Sometimes I cite a trend without explaining it enough, assuming everybody knows the national security debate.
For an example of this trend:
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=58+Me.+L.+Rev.+135&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=f34d07300d0c2bd76a374298b9d08191
So today's total of 117 mil vets in Congress means we're down to 22% (117 of 535). To compare, 70% during the Cold War would equal 374 members today--or more than triple the current total.
In general, you want a highly experienced Congress, not merely one reflective of the general population.
Gotta read the whole thing but looks suspiciously similar to Police work.Especially the bits about use of force, which is a huge and ongoing training issue in law enforcement (LE). One of the primary things LE gets sued over.
During the early stages of the Iraq conflict I was in contact with folks there serving in various roles. The LE community provided a lot of advice, tactics, gear and training to those in Iraq. One theme that kept re occurring is that units with working cops in them by and large had fewer casualties and incidents when kicking in doors and finding bad guys. Doing the things COIN spells out.
Back to use of force, probably the essence of COIN. How LE uses force (arresting people most of the time over killing them) and how the Military uses force (Killing people and blowing things up over arresting them) are diametrically opposed.
Now to tie it up....My Dad born 1942 has a hard time understanding why we are not "winning" in Iraq / Afghanistan. I have explained many times that it just doesn't work that way. Winning to his generation is crushing the enemy utterly and imposing our system. Winning in the context of COIN (later generations) is to put a lid on it and get the populace to get along their way and minimize the killing and mayhem. Lots of generational and world view issues.
Matt hang in there. The gospel according to Barnett (and others like him) is starting to take hold. You will see (soon I hope) persons getting elected that "get it" more often than not. It's not just Congress where we need good elected officials...local / state government is in desperate need of those that "get it" too.
It's just community policing in a frontier environment. Less Rudy Giuliani and more Wyatt Earp.
But you're on the right track.