Advertisement

‘Our Ghettos, Too, Need a Lansdale’: American Counter-insurgency Abroad and at Home in the Vietnam Era

  • William Rosenau
Part of the Rethinking Political Violence series book series (RPV)

Abstract

In national security affairs, as in other policy spheres, boundaries between ‘foreign’ and ‘domestic’ often become blurred and unstable. The ‘Global War on Terror’ (GWOT), with its intelligence gathering on US citizens and the relentless hunt for the ‘enemy within’, illustrates the erosion of any fixed distinction between external and indigenous threats and responses. Within US policy and academic circles, the American conduct of counter-insurgency typically is framed in ‘expeditionary’ terms. Under this conception, counter-insurgency is a tool of US international security policy — it is something the US armed forces and civilian agencies do abroad, ideally in cooperation with international partners and ‘by, with, and through’ the embattled ‘host nation’ facing insurgent threats. And at its most baroque, counter-insurgency demands nothing less than political, social, and economic revolution, with the United States serving as the midwife that will bring the besieged polity into the modern world.

Keywords

Naval Postgraduate School Aberdeen Prove Ground Collective Violence Guerrilla Warfare Racial Violence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Alfred W. McCoy, Policing America’s Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 2009), p. 16.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Jeremy Kuzmarov, Modernizing Repression: Police Training and Nation Building in the American Century (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2012), pp. 37–52.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Hugh Davis Graham, ‘On Riots and Riot Commissions: Civil Disorders in the 1960s’, The Public Historian 2, no. 4 (Summer 1980): 12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 11.
    Quoted in Andrea A. Burns, ‘Waging Cold War in a Model City: The Investigation of “Subversive” Influences in the 1967 Detroit Riot’, Michigan Historical Review 30, no. 1 (Spring 2004): 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 12.
    Kenneth O’Reilly, ‘The FBI and the Politics of Riots, 1964–1968’, The Journal of American History 75, no. 1 (June 1988): 105.Google Scholar
  6. 15.
    Demetrious Caraley, ‘Is the Large City Becoming Ungovernable?’, Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science 29, no. 4 (1969): 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 16.
    T.M. Tomlinson, ‘The Development of a Riot Ideology among Urban Negroes’, in Racial Violence in the United States, ed. Allen D. Grimshaw (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1969), p. 234.Google Scholar
  8. 17.
    Morris Janowitz, Social Control of Escalated Riots (Chicago: University of Chicago Center for Policy Study, 1968), p. 20.Google Scholar
  9. 18.
    Guy J. Pauker, Black Nationalism and Prospects for Violence in the Ghetto (Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, June 1969), p. 11.Google Scholar
  10. 20.
    George Thayer, The Farther Shores of Politics: The American Political Fringe Today (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967), p. 324.Google Scholar
  11. 23.
    Samuel Zipp: Manhattan Projects: The Rise and Fall of Urban Renewal in Cold War New York (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
  12. 24.
    Micheal Carriere, ‘Fighting the War against Blight: Columbia University, Morningside Heights, Inc., and Counterinsurgent Urban Renewal’, Journal of Planning History 10, no. 1 (2011): 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 25.
    Jennifer S. Light, From Warfare to Welfare: Defense Intellectuals and Urban Problems in Cold War America (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  14. 27.
    D. Michael Shafer, Deadly Paradigms: The Failure of US Counterinsurgency Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), p. 104.Google Scholar
  15. 28.
    Ted Gurr, ‘Urban Disorder: Perspectives from the Comparative Study of Civil Strife’, The American Behavioral Scientist (March–April, 1968): 50. In a 1965 report for the Pentagon-funded Defense Research Corporation, an anthropologist argued that collective violence in Harlem, Elizabeth, and Rochester and ‘the potentially insurgent aims’ held by various domestic groups’ show the possibil-ity that operational situations much like what we have seen in Saigon, Caracas, and Tel-Aviv are not impossible’. John L. Sorenson, Urban Insurgency Cases (Santa Barbara, CA: Defense Research Corporation, February 1965), p. 10.Google Scholar
  16. 29.
    Ellen Herman, The Romance of American Psychology: Political Culture in the Age of Experts (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), p. 228.Google Scholar
  17. 30.
    For more on this topic, see Kuzmarov, Modernizing Repression; and William Rosenau, US Internal Security Assistance to South Vietnam: Insurgency, Subversion, and Public Order (New York: Routledge, 2005).Google Scholar
  18. 31.
    Martha K. Huggins, Political Policing: The United States and Latin America (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998), p. 73.Google Scholar
  19. 38.
    David Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1964), p. 27.Google Scholar
  20. 39.
    Alex Marshall, ‘Imperial Nostalgia, the Liberal Lie, and the Perils of Postmodern Counterinsurgency’, Small Wars & Insurgencies 21, no. 2 (June 2010): 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Douglas Porch, ‘The Dangerous Myths and Dubious Promise of COIN’, Small Wars & Insurgencies 22, no. 2 (May 2011): 250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 41.
    Nathan Leites and Charles Wolf, Jr., Rebellion and Authority: An Analytic Essay on Insurgent Conflicts (Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1970).Google Scholar
  23. 43.
    Gary Wills, The Second Civil War: Arming for Armageddon (New York: The New American Library, 1968), p. 60.Google Scholar
  24. S.A. Yefsky, ed., Law Enforcement Science and Technology: Proceedings of the First National Symposium on Law Enforcement Science and Technology, vol. 1 (London: Thompson Book Company, 1967), p. 54.Google Scholar
  25. 45.
    Daryl F. Gates, Chief: My Life in the LAPD (New York: Bantam Books, 1993), p. 126.Google Scholar
  26. 48.
    For more on this history, see Robert Higham, ed., Bayonets in the Streets: The Use of Troops in Civil Disturbances (Manhattan, KS: Sunflower University Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  27. 53.
    Christopher H. Pyle, Military Surveillance of Civilian Politics 1967–1970 (New York: Garland Publishing, 1986), p. 326.Google Scholar
  28. 54.
    Quoted in Joan M. Jensen, Army Surveillance in America, 1775–1980 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991), p. 241.Google Scholar
  29. 63.
    Carl F. Rosenthal, Phases of Urban Disturbances: Characteristics and Problems (Washington, DC: CRESS, June 1969).Google Scholar
  30. 65.
    David W. Samuels, Donald O. Egner, and Donald Campbell, Riot Control: Analysis and Catalog (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: US Army Limited War Laboratory, October 1969), p. 48.Google Scholar
  31. 66.
    Richard W. Wilsnack, et al., Comprehensive Law & Order Assistance Research and Development (CLOARAD) Program (Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: US Army Land Warfare Laboratory, March 1971), p. v.Google Scholar
  32. 69.
    See, for example, Colonel Harries-Clichy Peterson, ‘Urban Guerrilla Warfare’, Military Review (March 1972); Robert E. Cottle, ‘Urban Guerrilla Warfare in the United States’, Air War College, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama; Robert Moss, The War for the Cities (New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, Inc., 1972)Google Scholar
  33. 71.
    See, for example, Anthony Platt and Lynn Cooper, Policing America (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1974).Google Scholar
  34. 72.
    Daniel Wilmer argues convincingly that notions of stability, development, and modernisation applied to American cities during the 1960s was later exported as part of a ‘counterinsurgency-inflected’ drug-control campaign abroad. Daniel Weimer, Seeing Drugs: Modernization, Counterinsurgency, and US Narcotics Control in the Third World, 1969–1976 (Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press, 2011), pp. 55–6.Google Scholar
  35. 73.
    Radley Balko, Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2006), pp. 7–13.Google Scholar
  36. 76.
    Tom Marks, ‘Northern Ireland and Urban America on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century’, in Global Dimensions of High Intensity Crime and Low Intensity Conflict, ed. Graham Turbiville (Chicago: Office of International Criminal Justice, 1995), p. 77.Google Scholar
  37. 77.
    Peter B. Kraska, ‘Crime Control as Warfare: Language Matters’, in Militarizing the American Criminal Justice System: The Changing Roles of the Armed Forces and the Police, ed. Peter B. Kraska (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2001), p. 20.Google Scholar
  38. 79.
    Quoted in Karl Vick, ‘Iraq’s Lessons, On the Home Front’, Washington Post, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-11-15/news/36845011_1_mayor-dennis-donohue-salinas-gang-warfare (accessed 20 March 2013). For more on this collaboration, see Michael Freeman and Hy Rothstein, eds, Gangs and Guerrillas: Ideas from Counterinsurgency and Counterterrorism (Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, April 2011), p. 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© William Rosenau 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Rosenau

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations