A while ago, there was a very strong debate about the role of terror tactics and authoritarianism in counterinsurgency. Ink Spots' Gulliver quite sensibly dispensed with the myth of "Roman COIN" by pointing out the obvious: whatever advantages authoritarian states have in counterinsurgency are balanced out by the excesses those states often indulge in.
I'd like to also point out another massive flaw with the "Roman COIN" argument: what wins war is neither touchy-feeliness nor brutality. It is power. The strawman in COIN debates is the confusion of power with brutality. The Romans did not frighten the barbarians because they were more brutal, they cowed their enemies into submission by crushing them and demonstrating the futility of resistance. Likewise, the key to Sri Lankan victory was not terror tactics but the marshaling of extensive political and military power to isolate and destroy the Tamil Tiger para-state. Technology, tactical science, and economic and military resources allowed the Europeans to enforce their will on the peoples of the Americas. Those who can draw enough power to win and utilize it accordingly usually are successful.
The instrumental use of terror as a part of power is undoubtedly present in many external and internal conflicts. But it is not crucial for a democracy to resort to terror to win, and autocracies do not derive as large of an advantage from it as some may believe. The problem is that the purposeful use of power is being confused with terror. Armies that give free reign to their soldiers to engage in barbarous activities or try to use terror instrumentally are with few exceptions bands of ragtag militias that break whenever they fight an opponent who can fight back. Following the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions is not only a moral imperative but also good from a strategic and organizational perspective.
Trying to imitate a cartoonish image of the Imperial Roman army in Gaul will not help us win our wars. Listen carefully to Conan's words in his spiel--this is as far from the "tea drinking" strawman stereotype as you can get but there is nothing in his monologue that suggests the usage of terror. He is talking about using power to win. If we are not able to use our political and military power to either crush outright or frustrate our adversaries, then we will lose--it is as simple as that.
Comments