THE STRUGGLE THAT MATTERS IS BETWEEN OUR OWN BUREAUCRACY AND OUR FIELD OFFICERS::

From the Top: The question of command in counterinsurgency: a review of A Question of Command: Counterinsurgency from the Civil War to Iraq (Yale Library of Military History) by Mark Moyar (John J. Tierney, Jr, Books & Culture)

Moyar offers a "leader-centric" approach which, in his own words, sees counterinsurgency as "a contest between elites in which the elite with the superiority in certain leadership attributes usually wins." He notes that this emphasis on leadership is implicit in some earlier studies of counterinsurgency, but "no previous attempt has been made to present this interpretation comprehensively or to find supporting evidence from a wide range of cases."

What, then, are the qualities possessed by good leaders? More than just the weight and mass of force, leadership requires intangible qualities such as charisma, sociability, and flexibility. Applying these qualities inside insurgency, leaders in command should put a premium on persuasive communications, impartial law enforcement, incorruptibility, and respect for personal property. Historically, Moyar argues, the application of such qualities has decided the outcome of most insurgencies.

But how are such qualities obtained? One might think that they should be taught in the great academies. But Moyar believes that they are much more culture-bound and have developed through family traditions, since "cultures and their effects have shown themselves very resistant to deliberate change." He concedes, however, that such traits can be enhanced through "self-improvement and practice," and that senior leaders can coach and inspire such traits among their subordinates through training and education. He also writes that command leadership is often boosted by shared identity between leaders and followers and by experience in command, even if this experience is in fields other than counterinsurgency.

The bulk of Moyar's book lies in chapters 2 through 10, in which he develops his thesis through a range of case studies. Most of these involve Americans in dual insurgent-counterinsurgent roles, but he also includes El Salvador, where the U.S. played an advisory role, and Malaya, a British operation. These case studies not only suggest the even wider array of insurgencies that have been waged throughout history but also bring out the essential importance of command in each of them, a point that Moyar has properly defined as neglected. In this respect Moyar is a true pioneer in a field whose importance for national security has been accepted only reluctantly and belatedly by the American public.

American history is, in fact, replete with insurgent operations, including the Revolution itself, the Civil War, and a number of overseas interventions largely forgotten by a post-Cold War generation. Moyar concentrates on U.S. actions in the Philippines during the 20th century and, more recently, in Iraq and Afghanistan. There were, of course, many others, particularly in Central America and in the Caribbean, but Moyar's selections are both focused and relevant.

Space precludes a comprehensive account of each one of them, but a few selections should suffice. The Civil War offers some of the major aspects of the classic dichotomy between "good" and "bad" command. An example of the former would be General George Crook, who, in Moyar's words, "relied on decentralized command, leaving local commanders to decide how to fight the war in their areas." Crook "crushed the guerrillas in a portion of West Virginia by picking good officers and setting them loose in the countryside with no specific instructions on how to accomplish the mission of defeating the insurgents." In assessing "good" command Moyar is explicit in adhering to the qualities enumerated in his theoretical introduction.