Bandwagonistas: Rhetorical re-description, strategic choice and the politics of counter-insurgency

Jeffrey H. Michaels; Matthew Ford

doi:10.1080/09592318.2011.573417

Bandwagonistas: Rhetorical re-description, strategic choice and the politics of counter-insurgency

Jeffrey H. Michaels, Matthew Ford

Defence Studies

University of Hull

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

21 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This paper seeks to explore how a particular narrative focused on populationcentric counterinsurgency shaped American strategy during the Autumn 2009 Presidential review on Afghanistan, examine the narrative's genealogy and suggest weaknesses and inconsistencies that exist within it. More precisely our ambition is to show how through a process of 'rhetorical redescription' this narrative has come to dominate contemporary American strategic discourse. We argue that in order to promote and legitimate their case, a contemporary 'COIN Lobby' of influential warrior scholars, academics and commentators utilizes select historical interpretations of counterinsurgency and limits discussion of COIN to what they consider to be failures in implementation. As a result, it has become very difficult for other ways of conceptualizing the counterinsurgency problem to emerge into the policy debate.

Original language	English
Article number	n/a
Pages (from-to)	352-384
Number of pages	33
Journal	Small Wars and Insurgencies
Volume	22
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1080/09592318.2011.573417
Publication status	Published - Jun 2011

Access to Document

10.1080/09592318.2011.573417

Cite this

@article{5fb2e228471b4ab39a196f6f51206baf,

title = "Bandwagonistas: Rhetorical re-description, strategic choice and the politics of counter-insurgency",

abstract = "This paper seeks to explore how a particular narrative focused on populationcentric counterinsurgency shaped American strategy during the Autumn 2009 Presidential review on Afghanistan, examine the narrative's genealogy and suggest weaknesses and inconsistencies that exist within it. More precisely our ambition is to show how through a process of 'rhetorical redescription' this narrative has come to dominate contemporary American strategic discourse. We argue that in order to promote and legitimate their case, a contemporary 'COIN Lobby' of influential warrior scholars, academics and commentators utilizes select historical interpretations of counterinsurgency and limits discussion of COIN to what they consider to be failures in implementation. As a result, it has become very difficult for other ways of conceptualizing the counterinsurgency problem to emerge into the policy debate.",

author = "Michaels, {Jeffrey H.} and Matthew Ford",

year = "2011",

month = jun,

doi = "10.1080/09592318.2011.573417",

language = "English",

volume = "22",

pages = "352--384",

journal = "Small Wars and Insurgencies",

issn = "0959-2318",

publisher = "Routledge",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bandwagonistas

T2 - Rhetorical re-description, strategic choice and the politics of counter-insurgency

AU - Michaels, Jeffrey H.

AU - Ford, Matthew

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - This paper seeks to explore how a particular narrative focused on populationcentric counterinsurgency shaped American strategy during the Autumn 2009 Presidential review on Afghanistan, examine the narrative's genealogy and suggest weaknesses and inconsistencies that exist within it. More precisely our ambition is to show how through a process of 'rhetorical redescription' this narrative has come to dominate contemporary American strategic discourse. We argue that in order to promote and legitimate their case, a contemporary 'COIN Lobby' of influential warrior scholars, academics and commentators utilizes select historical interpretations of counterinsurgency and limits discussion of COIN to what they consider to be failures in implementation. As a result, it has become very difficult for other ways of conceptualizing the counterinsurgency problem to emerge into the policy debate.

AB - This paper seeks to explore how a particular narrative focused on populationcentric counterinsurgency shaped American strategy during the Autumn 2009 Presidential review on Afghanistan, examine the narrative's genealogy and suggest weaknesses and inconsistencies that exist within it. More precisely our ambition is to show how through a process of 'rhetorical redescription' this narrative has come to dominate contemporary American strategic discourse. We argue that in order to promote and legitimate their case, a contemporary 'COIN Lobby' of influential warrior scholars, academics and commentators utilizes select historical interpretations of counterinsurgency and limits discussion of COIN to what they consider to be failures in implementation. As a result, it has become very difficult for other ways of conceptualizing the counterinsurgency problem to emerge into the policy debate.

U2 - 10.1080/09592318.2011.573417

DO - 10.1080/09592318.2011.573417

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79959544371

SN - 0959-2318

VL - 22

SP - 352

EP - 384

JO - Small Wars and Insurgencies

JF - Small Wars and Insurgencies

IS - 2

M1 - n/a

ER -

Bandwagonistas: Rhetorical re-description, strategic choice and the politics of counter-insurgency

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this