Combined Arms Center Blog

Blog Library
Welcome to Combined Arms Center Blog Sign in | Join | Help
in Search

USA and USMC Counterinsurgency Center Blog

Money as a tool in COIN, mission enhancer or detractor?

Money is a major tool in COIN operations. Many leaders liken it to a weapon, a force multiplier. Funding from sources such as the Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP) can help commanders build rapport with the local community and create a stable and secure environment.

However, there is also concern about the ramifications of the use of money on the battlefield. A May 2008 article in the Economist stated,

"...instant projects are not sustainable...the aim must be to create long-term development and build up the capacity of Afghans to run their own affairs. At best CERP provides "artificial resuscitation" rather than real treatment; at worst, as when schools are built without teachers to staff them, the Americans end up constructing what one British official called “the world’s most expensive camel sheds."

A COIN Center Blog visitor commented, "The use of CERP funds, while positive for keeping young males occupied, does not necessarily create the conditions for Afghan self sustainability. CERP funds could become just another form of welfare, which discourages economic initiative."

What role should money play in COIN? What can be done to ensure that funding programs, such as CERP, enhance mission accomplishment rather than detract from it?

The COIN Center is interested in your perspectives and experiences in the application of money (best practices, lessons learned, examples of how money was utilized effectively/ineffectively) in theater. We look forward to your responses.

For further information on this topic please reference the "Money as a Weapon System (MAAWS) SOP" located in our Knowledge Center.

Only published comments... Oct 31 2008, 10:48 AM by COIN Center

Comments

 

steve petzold said:

The use of money as a weapon is very effective if properly used. Units are all to quick to spend money on feel good projects that are not sustainable or wanted by the local populace. We, as a military, normally do not have the ability to plan and implement long-term capacity building projects because of the short duration we are in country and we have a hard time nesting our projects with Department of State long-term objectives. Inter-agency, NGO's, or IO's are better suited to conduct long-term projects because their stay is long-term. Reporting the amount of money spent and projects completed have become the norm in both theaters to measure success without identifying what the intended effects are of the project nor does one really measure the effects over time because once a project is completed it is forgotten. The military should focus on projects that repair what the military has destroyed due to combat operations. Then, and only then should they do projects to restore essential services for the country. Note- American essential services are not necissarily the essential services of other countries. Just because we have so much does not mean that everyone should have it to because they may not be able to sustain American essentail service standards. Lastly, we should not be spending our money if the country we are conducting operations in has the funds available to do the projects themselves. We are not legitimizing the government if we as Americans do the projects ourselves because we wnat it completed now, in American time.

November 4, 2008 5:31 PM
 

USA and USMC Counterinsurgency Center Blog said:

USA/USMC COIN Center Director COL Daniel Roper, published an article entitled " Global Counterinsurgency

November 26, 2008 3:28 PM
 

USA and USMC Counterinsurgency Center Blog said:

Director's Comments: As you read this SITREP, I am visiting the COIN Training Center /CLC-A in Kabul

December 2, 2008 11:43 AM