U.S. Army War College >> Strategic Studies Institute >> Publications >> Details

Shades of CORDS in the Kush: The False Hope of "Unity of Effort" in American Counterinsurgency

Authored by Mr. Henry Nuzum.

Brief Synopsis

Counterinsurgency (COIN) requires an integrated military, political, and economic program best developed by teams that field both civilians and soldiers. These units should operate with some independence but under a coherent command. In Vietnam, after several false starts, the United States developed an effective unified organization, Civil Operations and Revolutionary Development Support (CORDS), to guide the counterinsurgency. CORDS had three components absent from our efforts in Afghanistan today: sufficient personnel (particularly civilian), numerous teams, and a single chain of command that united the separate COIN programs of the disparate American departments at the district, provincial, regional, and national levels. This Paper focuses on the third issue and describes the benefits that unity of command at every level would bring to the American war in Afghanistan. The work begins with a brief introduction to counterinsurgency theory, using a population-centric model, and examines how this warfare challenges the United States. It traces the evolution of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) and the country team, describing problems at both levels. Similar efforts in Vietnam are compared, where persistent executive attention finally integrated the government’s counterinsurgency campaign under the unified command of the CORDS program. The next section attributes the American tendency towards a segregated response to cultural differences between the primary departments, executive neglect, and societal concepts of war. The Paper argues that, in its approach to COIN, the United States has forsaken the military concept of unity of command in favor of “unity of effort” expressed in multiagency literature. The final sections describe how unified authority would improve our efforts in Afghanistan and propose a model for the future.

You may also be interested in the following titles:

• 
  Strategic Landscape, 2050: Preparing the U.S. Military for New Era Dynamics

• 
  The Clash of the Trinities: A New Theoretical Analysis of the General Nature of War

• 
  Building Partner Capacity in Africa: Keys to Success

• 
  Rotational Deployments vs. Forward Stationing: How Can the Army Achieve Assurance and Deterrence Eff...

• 
  What Should the U.S. Army Learn From History? Recovery From a Strategy Deficit

• 
  The Army War College Review Vol. 3, No. 1

• 
  Ends, Means, Ideology, and Pride: Why the Axis Lost and What We Can Learn from Its Defeat

• 
  U.S. Landpower in the South China Sea

Survey: Shades of CORDS in the Kush: The False Hope of "Unity of Effort" in American Counterinsurgency

1. How would you rate the writing and overall quality? (5 best - 1 Worst)

12345

N/A

2. Is the content relevant for influencing present and future debates?

YesNoNo Opinion

Your Comments (No URLs Allowed):

If you'd like a reply to your comments, provide your email:
(optional)

View other pubs in the following categories:

Central Asia
Era of Persistent Conflict
Landpower Employment & Sustainment
Middle East and North Africa
Military Strategy and Policy
Sub-Saharan Africa
War and Society
Afghanistan
Iraq
Military Roles
Nation Building