Center for a New American Security

Much to my amusement, this post on the utlity of quantitative analysis caused quite a stir in the international relations blogosphere. I don't know if folks in security studies just don't have a sense of humor or if it's true what Kissinger said about how university politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small.

I have written a little about the utility of quantitative analysis in the field of security studies here and here.

A week ago, I spent some time on the blog whining about Quants and their work on counterinsurgency. Since then, two scholars -- distinguished veterans of the war in Iraq -- have told me that while they share some of my frustrations, I should make some exceptions -- especially for the work being done by Jason Lyall, Eli Berman and Jacob Shapiro.

Goodness gracious, I was just on CNN opposite Robert Pape, the respected University of Chicago scholar who was making a case for off-shore balancing as a means to secure U.S. interests in Afghanistan. Honestly, I should not have to debate IR theory before at least three cups of coffee.

UPDATE: I tracked down a transcript of our debate.

The government has not helped, refugees said, with its erratic, seesawing efforts to appease and fight the militants.

Since 9/11, the U.S. and its allies have been involved in two prolonged counter-insurgency campaigns in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These wars are low-tech conflicts in which anthropological skills and language training are often more important than high-tech weapons systems.