Title:
|
The lesser of two evils? : U.S. indirect intervention in counterinsurgency, 1946-1991
|
This book is a comparative study of U.S. efforts to assist allied nations in
counterinsurgency through indirect intervention, with a specific focus on how external
aid can induce political, economic and military reform as part of a broader
counterinsurgency strategy. A critical error lies at the heart of the U.S.
Counterinsurgency manual, FM 3-24, and much of the literature it draws on: the
erroneous assumption that it will be comparatively easy for a patron state to shape the
counterinsurgency strategies of the client government it is supporting because the
priorities, goals and interests of the two parties will be closely aligned. In fact, history
demonstrates that is rarely the case.
Critical counterinsurgency scholars, such as Douglas Blaufarb, Michael Shafer,
William adorn and Benjamin Schwartz, have argued that given the divergent preferences
of the U.S. and the local government it is assisting and the relative lack of leverage
provided by foreign aid, external assistance will reduce the local government's incentives
to address root causes of discontent and encourage counterinsurgency strategies based
solely on repression-contravening American counterinsurgency doctrine and
preferences. Although this represents an important critique of U.S. counterinsurgency
thinking that has been ignored in the contemporary discourse, it is incomplete.
This study revises the arguments of these critical scholars about the ability to gain
leverage via aid by examining their principal case studies, the Hukbalahap Rebellion in
the Philippines (1946-1953), Vietnam during the rule of Ngo Dinh Diem (1955-1963)
and the Salvadorian Civil War (1979-1991) in considerably greater detail than the
original scholars did-drawing on tens of thousands of pages of primary materials from
nineteen different archives in three countries. In doing so, this work makes several
unique contributions. First, the book demonstrates that while the warnings of the critical
COIN scholars are cogent, they failed to detect the use of varying aid strategies by the
United States during the course of its interventions. In fact, the particular choice of aid
strategy directly affected the generation of inter-alliance leverage, with inducement-the
unilateral provision of incentives and other positive sanctions-and conditionality-the
strict tying of specific aid to specific reforms-resulting in significantly different levels
of client compliance with the patron's preferred policies. Second, it employs agency
theory to examine the patterns of patron-client dynamics during indirect interventions in a
theoretically rigorous and structured manner that indicates the key agency problem is
about adverse selection, not moral hazard, as some critical scholars have suggested.
Finally, the study identifies and corrects several important errors of causality in the case
studies employed by the critical counterinsurgency scholars. In addition to expanding the
understanding of the role of allies and external support in counterinsurgency, two areas
which are under-theorized in the academic literature on the subject, the issues explored in
this study have relevance for contemporary policy challenges in Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
|