Counterinsurgency Lessons From Malaya and Vietnam: Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife; Resisting Rebellion: The History and Politics of Counterinsurgency
The subtitle of Nagl's well-crafted comparison of the British and U.S. responses to the challenges of insurgency in Malaya and Vietnam draws on Lawrence of Arabia's metaphor for how slow and messy it can be to make war on a rebellion. Like the current Basra-Baghdad comparison, the starting conditions may have flattered the British management of their counter-insurgency operations in Malaya, but the point of Nagl's book is that the British managed to learn from early mistakes and adapt to the situation. Nagl has recently had a chance to assess as a serving officer the problems of the U.S. capacity to learn from its mistakes in Iraq.
Joes has written many books on guerrilla warfare, and, although his latest goes over ground he has worked before, he justifies it by taking as his perspective that of the counterinsurgent. The structure does not make the argument easy to follow: each point is illustrated with detailed case studies, and the same studies reappear under a number of headings. He has strong opinions on many issues of historical interpretation and misses no opportunity to expound, for example, on why the defeat of South Vietnam was not inevitable. He also has an irritating tendency to convey the size of all foreign countries as multiples of arbitrarily chosen U.S. states. And yet there is a lot of knowledge packed into these pages, the detail on particular cases is often fascinating, and the lessons, in the end, are sensible and highly topical: provide means to deal with real grievances; commit sufficient troops; isolate the conflict area; display rectitude toward civilians and prisoners; emphasize intelligence; disrupt the insurgents' food supplies; and divide the leaders from the followers.
Related
As Washington was fretting about ballistic missiles, 19 hijackers used commercial airliners to kill more Americans than had died in any previous attack in the country's history. And there could be worse to come. The United States is the target of a few hostile nations and well-organized terrorist groups, some of them state-sponsored. They understand that nuclear or biological weapons could do the job even better. To meet these new threats, Washington must pursue three simultaneous strategies: prevention, deterrence, and defense. Missile defense is not the whole answer -- and it could even become part of the problem.
Although the early U.S. blunders in the occupation of Iraq are well known, their consequences are just now becoming clear. The Bush administration was never willing to commit the resources necessary to secure the country and did not make the most of the resources it had. U.S. officials did get a number of things right, but they never understood-or even listened to-the country they were seeking to rebuild. As a result, the democratic future of Iraq now hangs in the balance.
Colombia is waging a war on two fronts: against guerrillas and against drugs. The former cannot be won on the battlefield alone. If the current peace talks fail, the country will plunge into all-out chaos. So the United States needs to take Colombia off the back burner and work with its government to help tamp down the violence, limit the drug lords' clout, lower the demand for drugs abroad, and prod the peace process along. Without these steps, even billions in U.S. aid will not be enough.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.