Jump to content

Counterinsurgency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Leandrod (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 27 October 2007 (Ref.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Counter-insurgency, commonly abbreviated COIN, is a type of military campaign used in an occupation or a civil war to quell rebellion. Counter-insurgency is usually conducted in conjunction with conventional military operations, propaganda, and psychological operations.

Governments are often slow to recognize they are fighting an insurgency, allowing insurgents initial success in arming and attacking. Once governments realize the threat they face they often must adapt their tactics to accommodate to the unconventional form of warfare required in a counter-insurgency.[1]

Specific definitions

The U.S. Army published a Special Forces manual titled Counter-Insurgency Operations in 1960. The term was used by the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War and since late 2004 has been used by them to describe ongoing operations in Iraq.

As used by the U.S. Army, counter-insurgency operations include psychological warfare and information warfare aspects of such operations, which include direct interference in a country's politics and media or the spread of disinformation, the civilian equivalent of military deception, to maintain control of a population.

The U.S. military and allied South Vietnamese security forces conducted counter-insurgency operations against National Liberation Front guerrillas during the Vietnam War, including the notorious Phoenix Program which resulted in the killing of thousands of civilians accused of being NLF sympathizers or relatives of sympathizers.

The U.S., British, and allied occupation forces and the Iraqi security forces are currently engaging in a counter-insurgency operation against various Iraqi guerrilla groups opposed to the presence of foreign troops and the current elected Iraqi government.

Roger Trinquier, the immensely influential French counter-insurgency expert, suggested three simple principles:

  1. separate the guerrilla from the population that supports him;
  2. occupy the zones that the guerrillas previously operated from, making them dangerous for him and turning the people against the guerrilla movement; and
  3. coordinate actions over a wide area and for a long enough time that the guerrilla is denied access to the population centres that could support him.[2]

This requires an extremely capable intelligence infrastructure endowed with human sources and deep cultural knowledge. This contributes to the difficulty that foreign, as opposed to indigenous, powers have in counter-insurgent operations.

For Trinquier, intelligence was one of several crucial enablers for defeating an insurgent. Others included a secure area to operate from, sources in the general population and government, maintaining the initiative, and careful management of propaganda.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[3]

British forces were able to employ the relocation method with considerable success during the Malayan Emergency. The Briggs Plan, implemented fully in 1950, relocated Chinese squatters into protected "New Villages", designated by British forces. By the end of 1951, some 400,000 Chinese had moved into the fortifications. Of this population, the British forces were able to form a "Home Guard", armed for resistance against the Malay Communist Party, an implementation mirrored by the Strategic Hamlet Program later used by U.S. forces in South Vietnam.

A somewhat similar strategy was used extensively by U.S. forces in South Vietnam, initially by forcing the rural population into fenced camps, referred to as Strategic Hamlets, and later by bombing them with B-52s to remove the rest from their villages and farms. Widespread use was made of chemical herbicides, sprayed from airplanes, to destroy crops that might possibly have provided resources for NLF fighters and their human support base.

The majority of counter-insurgency efforts by major Western powers in the last century have been spectacularly unsuccessful. This may be attributed to a number of causes. First, as Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart pointed out in the Insurgency addendum to the second version of his book Strategy: The Indirect Approach, a popular insurgency has an inherent advantage over any occupying force. He showed as a prime example the French occupation of Spain during the Napoleonic wars. Whenever Spanish forces managed to constitute themselves into a regular fighting force, the superior French forces beat them every time. However, once dispersed and decentralized, the irregular nature of the rebel campaigns proved a decisive counter to French superiority on the battlefield. Napoleon's army had no means of effectively combatting the rebels, and in the end their strength and morale were so sapped that when Wellington was finally able to challenge French forces in the field, the French had almost no choice but to abandon the situation.

Liddell Hart also points to the experiences of T.E. Lawrence and the Arab Revolt during World War I as another example of the power of the rebel/insurgent. Though the Ottomans often had advantages in manpower of more than 100 to 1, the Arabs' ability to materialize out of the desert, strike, and disappear again often left the Turks reeling and paralyzed, creating an opportunity for regular British forces to sweep in and finish the Turkish forces off.

In both the preceding cases, the insurgents and rebel fighters were working in conjunction with or in a manner complementary to regular forces. Such was also the case with the French Resistance during World War II and the Vietcong during the Vietnam War. The strategy in these cases is for the irregular combatant to weaken and destabilize the enemy to such a degree that victory is easy or assured for the regular forces. However, in many modern rebellions, one does not see rebel fighters working in conjunction with regular forces. Rather, they are home-grown militias or imported fighters who have no unified goals or objectives save to expel the occupier. In these cases, such as the Israeli occupation of Lebanon, which ended in 2000, and the current Iraqi insurgency, the goal of the insurgent is not to defeat the occupying military force; that is almost always an impossible task. Rather, they seek through a constant campaign of sneak attacks to inflict continuous casualties upon their superior enemy forces and thereby over time demoralize the occupying forces and erode political support for the occupation in the homeland of the occupying forces. It is a simple strategy of repeated pin-pricks and bleedings that, though small in proportion to the total force strength, sap the will of the occupier to continue the fight.

According to Liddell Hart, there are few effective counter-measures to this strategy. So long as the insurgency maintains popular support, it will retain all of its strategic advantages of mobility, invisibility, and legitimacy in its own eyes and the eyes of the people. So long as this is the situation, an insurgency essentially cannot be defeated by regular forces. Mao Zedong attempted to neutralize this advantage by simply taking away the civilian population that shielded the insurgents; however, this had the foreseeable effect of alienating the populace and further fueling support for the rebels. In the current operations against insurgents in the "War on Terror", such ruthless tactics are not available to commanders, even if they were effective. Another option in combating an insurgency would be to make the presence of troops so pervasive that there is simply no place left for insurgents to hide, as demonstrated in Franco's conquest of Republican Spain during the Spanish Civil War or the Union occupation of Confederate States with Federal troops following the American Civil War. In each of these cases, enormous amounts of man-power were needed for an extended period of time to quell resistance over almost every square km of territory. In an age of ever shrinking and increasingly computerized armed forces, this option too is precluded from a modern commanders options.

Essentially, then, only one viable option remains. The key to a successful counter-insurgency is the winning-over of the occupied territory's population. If that can be achieved, then the rebellion will be deprived of its supplies, shelter, and, more importantly, its moral legitimacy. Unless the hearts and minds of the public can be separated from the insurgency, the occupation is doomed to fail. In a modern democracy, in the face of perceived incessant losses, no conflict will be tolerated by an electorate without significant show of tangible gains. It should be noted that though the United States and its ARVN allies won every single major battle with North Vietnamese forces and the communists suffered staggering losses (2 million+ casualties), the cost of victory was so high in the opinion of the American public (58,193 U.S. casualties) that it came to see any further possible gains as not worth the troop losses. As long as the popular support is there, an insurgency can hold out indefinitely, consolidating its shadowy control and replenishing its ranks, until the occupiers simply leave.

Oil spot

The oil spot, or inkspot, approach is a descriptive term for the concentration of counter-insurgent forces into an expanding, secured zone. It was used by General Gallieni in Madagascar at the turn of the 20th century, and again during the Malagasy Uprising of 1947.

During the Vietnam War, the oil spot approach was one of the justifications given in the Pentagon Papers for the Strategic Hamlet Program.[4]

While appealing in principle, the oil spot approach is problematic because it does not take enemy strengths into account.

COIN Aircraft

Since the 1960s a specialized form of close air support has been developed for counter-insurgency operations. This covers a wide range of operations, from ground attack and observation to light transport and casualty evacuation. An aircraft used for counter-insurgency should ideally be able to perform all these roles. Such an aircraft should have low loitering speed, long endurance, simplicity in maintenance, and the capability to make short take-offs and landings from rough frontline airstrips.

At first (particularly during the Vietnam War) counter-insurgency missions were flown by existing airplanes and helicopters hastily adapted for the role, notably the Douglas A-1 Skyraider. Later, more specialized counter-insurgency (or COIN) aircraft began to appear, such as Britten-Norman Defender (UK), BAC Strikemaster (UK), Cessna A-37 Dragonfly (USA), Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano (Brazil), Rockwell OV-10 Bronco (USA), FMA IA 58 Pucará (Argentina), and Cessna O-2 Skymaster (USA).

Training

Counter Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School (CIJWS) is located in the north-eastern town of the Indian state of Mizoram is well-known for the Counter Insurgency and Jungle Warfare training which outweighs the gallantry of the Indian Army. Armies from the countries such as the US, Britain, France, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Vietnam are benefited by the advantages of this school.[5]

Established in 1970, the school is considered one of the world's most prestigious anti-terrorist institutions. Soldiers from India and the United States participating at a long exercise in guerrilla warfare in Counter Insurgency and Jungle Warfare School at Vairengte in Mizoram. There is a joint effort in which graduate level and high quality education is being given by a joint staff of highly trained special operators at Camp Taji Phoenix Academy and the Counterinsurgency Center For Excellence in Iraq. This facility is used to train the military transition team members (MTT) as well as many Iraqi officers.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12]

See also

Further reading

  • Ivan Arreguín-Toft, How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), ISBN 0-521-54869-1.
  • Ivan Arreguín-Toft, Tunnel at the End of the Light: A Critique of U.S. Counter-terrorist Grand Strategy, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, Vol. 15, No. 3 (2002). Pages 549–563.
  • Ivan Arreguín-Toft, How to Lose a War on Terror: A Comparative Analysis of a Counterinsurgency Success and Failure, in Jan Ångström and Isabelle Duyvesteyn, Eds., Understanding Victory and Defeat in Contemporary War (London: Frank Cass, 2007).
  • C.E. Callwell, Small Wars: Their Principles & Practice (Lincoln, Nebraska: Bison Books, 1996), ISBN 0-8032-6366-X.
  • James Anthony Joes, Resisting Rebellion: The History and Politics of Counterinsurgency (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2004), ISBN 0-8131-9170-X.
  • David Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice (1964)
  • Frank Kitson. Low Intensity Operations: Subversion, Insurgency and Peacekeeping (1971)
  • Gil Merom, How Democracies Lose Small Wars: State, Society, and the Failures of France in Algeria, Israel in Lebanon, and the United States in Vietnam (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), ISBN 0-521-00877-8.
  • John A. Nagl, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2002), ISBN 0-275-97695-5. (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2005). ISBN: 0-226-56770-2. New preface to the paperback edition by John A. Nagl.
  • Marie-Monique Robin, Los Escuadrones De La Muerte/ the Death Squadron / Escadrons de la mort, l'école française (book and film). (ISBN 950072684X) see here)
  • Kalev Sepp, Best Practices in Counterinsurgency, Military Review, May-June 2005, pp. 8–12.
  • Robert Thompson, Defeating Communist Insurgency: Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam (London: Chatto & Windus, 1966), ISBN 0-7011-1133-X.
  • Robert R. Tomes, "Relearning Counterinsurgency Warfare," Parameters Spring 2004. http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/04spring/tomes.pdf
  • Roger Trinquier. Modern Warfare: A French View of Counterinsurgency (1961) (Available online at the US Command and General Staff College)
  • U.S. Army Field Manual No. 3-24 (Counterinsurgency) Released on December 15, 2006. Jointly authored by writing teams from the Army and Marine Corps. Equivalent to Marine Corps Warfighting Publication No. 3-33.5.
  • The U.S. Army/Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2007), ISBN: 0-226-84151-0. A paperback edition of FM 3-24 that includes an introduction by Sarah Sewall and a foreword by John A. Nagl.

References

  1. ^ Counterinsurgency, December 2006. Headquarters, Department of the Army.
  2. ^ "Parameters" (PDF). US Army.
  3. ^ Zedong, Mao. Aspects of China's Anti-Japanese Struggle, 1948.
  4. ^ >"Pentagon Papers".
  5. ^ "Mizoram".
  6. ^ "FBO daily".
  7. ^ "Dawn".
  8. ^ "Military News 2005 Sept". {{cite web}}: Text "publisher Global Security" ignored (help)
  9. ^ "Sepia Mutiny".
  10. ^ "Article". Times of India.
  11. ^ "Army".
  12. ^ "2005 Sept". People Daily.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Counterinsurgency&oldid=167499053"