IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/polsoc/v38y2010i1p15-34.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Footprints in the Sand: British Colonial Counterinsurgency and the War in Iraq

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Branch

    (University of Warwick, Coventry, UK, d.p.branch@warwick.ac.uk)

Abstract

Recent attempts to revive counterinsurgency strategies for use in Afghanistan and Iraq have been marked by a determination to learn lessons from history. Using the case of the campaign against the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya of 1952—60, this article considers the reasons for this engagement with the past and the issues that have emerged as a consequence. The article disputes the lessons from British colonial history that have been learned by military planners, most obviously the characterization of nonmilitary forms of British counterinsurgency as nonviolent. Although it contests some of these supposed precedents for successful counterinsurgency in British military history, the article also identifies more generalizable elements of the Kenyan case. Particular emphasis is given to the effects on the nature of counterinsurgency, a reliance on locally recruited allies, and the decentralization of command.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Branch, 2010. "Footprints in the Sand: British Colonial Counterinsurgency and the War in Iraq," Politics & Society, , vol. 38(1), pages 15-34, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:38:y:2010:i:1:p:15-34
    DOI: 10.1177/0032329209357882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032329209357882
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0032329209357882?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Huw Bennett, 2007. "The Mau Mau Emergency as Part of the British Army's Post-War Counter-Insurgency Experience," Defense & Security Analysis, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(2), pages 143-163, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:38:y:2010:i:1:p:15-34. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.