The Expeditionary Imperative
America’s national security structure is designed to confront the challenges of the last century rather than our own.
Georges Clemenceau, France’s indomitable prime minister during World War I, famously remarked that “war is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.” He had reason to know: The fighting on the western front cost the lives of more than two million of his soldiers, exhausting the French nation for generations and ending in a peace that turned out to be only the prelude to an even more costly war.
If Clemenceau’s words were true a century ago, they are even more applicable today. Wars of this century are not fought by masses of people but, in British general Rupert Smith’s phrase, “among the peoples.” The counterinsurgency campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are battles for the allegiance of local populations, without whose support or at least compliance insurgents cannot survive. In our contemporary struggles, ideas and economic development are as important as heavy artillery was in Clemenceau’stime.
To read the rest of this article, please consider becoming a subscriber — which grants you access to all content — or click on one of the other links below.
-
John A. Nagl is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security. A retired Army officer who helped write The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual, he recently returned from visits to Iraq and Afghanistan sponsored by the commands there.
more from this author >>
Become a WQ subscriber!
Instant access to our full archive
A year's worth of award winning WQ
Special Introductory Price of only $20!
Support quality print
Subscribe Now


The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and in no way represent the views or opinions of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. This section is moderated by Wilson Quarterly staff.
global counterinsurgency campaign?
I admire your can-do American attitude, Mr. Nagl, but I interpret your well reasoned request for civilian resources to bolster our current and future counterinsurgency efforts as an excellent description of the line that marks the limit of American resources. The idea of an American counterinsurgency machine of the proportions described by you is frightening to me. There must be an alternative to what you describe. I cannot support the sweeping use of global counterinsurgency as an arm of our foreign policy. I hope someone of your caliber will soon provide a counterpoint to "The Expeditionary Initiative". Thank you for your service to our country both in and out of uniform. With Respect, RWhite
Posted by: rwhite | 11/3/09