Counterinsurgency: a new type of war

Counterinsurgency: A new type of war 

As we move into an era where conventional warfare becomes the exception rather than the rule and where enemies are no longer so easily distinguishable from their civilian population comes the challenge of how to tackle these new insurgents that are rocking the peace and stability of a nation. 

Counterinsurgency has been coined as the new type of war, a war that despite retaining its military leadership and characteristics is, on paper at least, being used to fight the insurgents through the local population. Its people-centric approach has moved away from war's focus on destruction of the enemy, to winning over the locals and enabling them to reduce support for the insurgents effectively forcing them out. 

Traditional war tends to avoided in favour of this population-centric approach, however there remain challenges to this new type of war. 

To understand how this new type of war, counterinsurgency, differs from traditional warfare, its benefits and its challenges its useful to pit the two types of war side by side as has been done below. 

Counterinsurgency: Comprehensive civilian and military effort taken to simultaneously defeat and contain insurgency and address its root causes.

“Every military leader, traditionally a professional specialising in the management of violence, must be prepared to become a social worker, a civil engineer, a schoolteacher, a nurse, a boy scout… but only for as long as he cannot be replaced, for it is better to entrust civilian tasks to civilians.” - French counterinsurgency expert David Galula

Conventional warfare can be defined as armed conflicts that are openly waged by one state against another by means of their regular armies. But today this seems to have largely become an exception rather than the rule. 

Comparison 

The goal behind counterinsurgency is to defeat an insurgency and resolve the insurgency’s underlying causes. In order to do this the counterinsurgents will look to create and maintain long-lasting stability through effective governance, economic development and social reform, using a mix of defensive, offensive and stabilising 

techniques. 

Stability and reform 

vs

Destruction 

Conventional warfare has a greater focus on combat and military might to destroy an enemy with a priority on engaging with the opposing armed forces and demonstrating the capacity to fight, kill and win. 

Counterinsurgency has become less about combat and more about the powers of persuasion to build relationships, reduce the insurgent influence and train indigenous security forces.

Diplomacy 

vs 

Military  Might 

Conventional warfare is form of hard power with its big demonstration of military might through the sheer numbers of trained soldiers and military equipment such as tanks, mechanised infantry, combat engineering capability, artillery, attack aviation, air and naval support.

Counterinsurgency prioritises the safety, security and popular support of the civilian population. Counterinsurgency essentially has a population-centric approach that’s aimed at winning the hearts and minds of the people and persuading them to reject the insurgency.

People centric 

vs 

People come second 

Conventional warfare has a greater focus on combat and military might to destroy an enemy with a priority on engage with the opposing armed forces and demonstrating the capacity to fight, kill and win. Victory is emphasised through firepower and manoeuvres.

Counterinsurgency also tends to take a very long time as this graph shows…the longer counterinsurgent forces were in place the more likely of lasting success. Even in the short term, after the establishment of good coin practices the average insurgency still lasts roughly six more years.

Lengthy and costly investment 

vs 

Quicker and cheaper 

It can be a quicker rapid way of defeating the enemy as forces act first and finish decisively with their exertion of military might. This rapid and decisive outcome through the use of overwhelming force minimises the likelihood of long-term deployments and becoming bogged down in a foreign intervention and is evidently cheaper.   

Counterinsurgent forces may go into a territory to try to put an end to insurgency earlier than it may have otherwise, in the hopes of averting war

Early intervention 

vs 

Last resort 

Conventional warfare is typically a last resort used to defeat the enemy in a worst-case scenario where nothing else has worked 

Asymmetric warfare without a clear battlefield and and end goal of stability and social reform that is not so easily defined. 

Asymmetric 

vs 

Symmetric 

Symmetric warfare on a usually defined battlefield that has a rapid and decisive outcome achieved through the use of overwhelming force 

Afghanistan: a case-study 

The US public perspective on COIN in Afghanistan 

Strengths

People-centric 

Long-term vision of stability 

Prioritises diplomatic relations over war 

Works with and equips the locals 

Well-intentioned

Counterinsurgency

vs 

Traditional war 

Quick 

Cheap 

Victory and end goal easily definable 

Weaknesses 

Costly 

Long-term investment 

Risks disempowering the locals by prioritising own goals over the local vision 

Can be used as a cover to gain some element of control over the foreign nation and its resources 

A foreign force not always welcomed by the locals 

Counterinsurgents military trained and not always equipped or trained for more diplomatic operations 

Counterinsurgency 

vs 

Traditional war 

Military and violence-centric 

Focus on the short-term = victory

Alienates the locals by destroying and seizing territory with military might 

Not always welcomed by the locals 

Food for thought 

Despite some of its flaws and failings and its potential to become simply a militarised attempt at peace-making counterinsurgency has potential to fighting non-state actors and has the admirable goal of supporting a nation on its journey to greater stability through social and economic reforms that would hopefully, eventually, reduce support for the insurgents and force them out.

However it must not be used as an excuse for foreign states to intervene in another country’s affairs and impose their own self-interested objectives.

Given the locals are given adequate scope to fulfill their own objectives for their state and that the balance of power is given to locals with a vested interest in the increased stability of their nation then counterinsurgency, given a chance does seem to be a preferable option to war.

-  Corazon Miller