Counter Insurgency

The new tactics that are being used in Iraq by General Petraeus are said to be counter insurgency. Part of these new tactics is the "surge" that occurred in Baghdad, this summer and fall. The U.S. military added 30,000 troops to the total in Iraq making the total U.S. troop count about 168,000. What is counter insurgency, what is an insurgency, is it different from terrorism, and if so than can counter insurgency tactics defeat terrorism?

The first thing is to define what an insurgency is, what terrorism is, and what is guerrilla warfare. These terms are often used interchangeably by much of the media and many of our current leaders. Using the definitions that Bard E. O'Nell put forth in the introduction of the book "War of the Flea."

"Insurgency-or internal war-is now viewed as a general overarching concept that refers to a conflict between a government and an out group or opponent in which the latter uses both political resources and violence to change, reformulate, or uphold the legitimacy of one or more of four key aspects of politics. Those aspects are (1) the integrity of the borders and composition of the nation state, (2) the political system, (3) the authorities in power, and (4) the policies that determine who gets what in the society. "

Terrorism is "the threat or use of physical coercion against non-combatants to create fear in order to achieve political objectives."

Guerrilla warfare "consists of hit-and-run attacks against police and military and the physical infrastructure that supports them. Insurgents may opt for one or both forms of warfare and in some cases, might even choose to carry out conventional attacks with regular troop formations."

So according to these definitions then terrorism can be used by insurgents and than a well developed and executed counter insurgency plan can defeat both insurgents and terrorists. A well developed counter insurgency plan must be developed from the bottom up. With such a conflict as an insurgency there is great complexity. An insurgency is of the people and will reflect all aspects of that society, and in turn a counter insurgency plan must adapt to the society that gave birth to the insurgency.

As a strategy is created it must start from the bottom with small units working to create security, stability and simple markets. A community based approach. Working from the bottom, there needs to be observation at the aggregate level to see if their is any change. Positive change or negative change must be observed and explained, so that there is an understanding of what is occurring and why. A flexible policy is needed to adapt to changes and be able to handle multiple solutions at the same time.

Whatever strategy is developed it must include and enforce all human rights. These are not just the basic human rights, of life, liberty, and a quick fair trial. There must be a recognition of other human rights such as access to clean water, meeting basic nutrition levels, access to medical care and medicine. The people need to have their rights to credit, security, and a presumption of innocence, enforced.

All this is done with the goal of creating legitimacy for the state and removing legitimacy from the insurgents. The state must be recognized as the legitimate power. The new counter insurgency manual for the military, focuses on increasing legitimacy of the state as the solution to an insurgency. Without legitimacy the state will fall and be replaced by the insurgents. This occurs because the citizens give their support to the insurgents.

In an insurgency and subsequent counter insurgency the true power lies in the people and their support. For the current doctrine the solution is to use police and the military to create a secure environment and than let private forces develop in the security. As can be seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine the current focus is not working.

The people are the power, and the focus needs to be on them. Security is only one of the many rights that we as humans have, and a counter insurgent plan will focus primarily on human rights. This approach removes any legitimacy that the insurgents might have, or have gained. This path also entrenches into the state the protection of human rights and the state's representation of their citizens collective voice.

The U.S. military will not win in either Iraq or Afghanistan because of the security only approach that has been adopted. The U.S. and the current states that are in place in both countries are not seen as legitimate. This loss can not be regained.

The flow of oil from the area is so important to the U.S. and the global economy will be in the region for many more years, at the cost of tens of thousands more lives, both U.S. and the local nationals. Trillions will be spent on just waging the war, with more for the treatment of the wounded and long term care of the veterans.

Right now this war is finally starting to impact the citizens of the U.S. with decrease in the economy's output, high fuel costs and a weakened dollar. With rumors of the reinstatement of the draft, this war may effect the citizens in the next couple of years in a way not thought to be possible.