Except that COIN isn't war, its just very violent sometimes
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete
Bob, you make good points. However, if this line of reasoning is taken to its logical conclusion it's a bit like saying that success in war will always elude us until the day comes that we develop a foreign policy that eradicates all the evils and injustices in the world. Before we reach that state of perfection on this planet there will be times when guys with grievances start things that will require armed force, police or military, to resolve. We're going far beyond the realm of military doctrine and entering into the field of existential philosophy.
When we stop thinking of COIN as war, and thinking of every intervention as COIN we will begin to be able to step back and see more clearly what actions are most likely to support our national interests in a region.
Insurgency and COIN are very much family business, and family violence. It is between a populace and its governance, outsiders can and do get involved on both sides, but for them outside the national family it is a totally different dynamic best described by our military doctrine as UW and FID.
But back to "All in the Family." I think everyone instinctively understands that domestic violence is different than violence outside the family. If a stranger assaults you on the street, and you beat him to a pulp in response, you can both go on about your lives with little residual baggage. Once it is over it is over.
If, on the other hand, your son punches you and you beat him to a pulp, it is never over. Same action, same reaction, totally different results.
This same dynamic is at work in Insurgency. We would do well to appreciate and recognize that possibility. At least long enough to go "Hmm, how does that affect my operations as either the COIN force or the FID force if that is true?"
Also, just as all violence is not war, not all internal violence is insurgency. Insurgency is a unique, distinct dynamic of populaces being pushed into a corner to where in their minds they have no alternative way to address their concerns with the government other than acting out illegally.
This is very different than say the violence between organized crime and the state.
It is also very different than situations like the American Civil War. People need to understand that under the Articles of Confederation All sovereignty was vested in the state, and none in the central government. It was an alliance, a treaty, not unlike the EU today. The Constitution was enacted to divide that sovereignty between the States and the central government. When Southern states voted to withdraw from the Union they were in there mind simply rejecting the concept of shared sovereignty as they felt it was becoming too intrusive on rights they felt were within the sovereignty of the State. This was not insurgency by any stretch of the imagination. Members of the populace did not rise up to challenge the Federal government, Sovereign states voted and in their minds withdrew the portions of their sovereignty they had given to the state some 70 odd years earlier.
This isn't about definitions, it is about very different forms of causation that then in turn drive very different solutions.
We can talk about war, but that is for another thread. This thread is about insurgency, and how a government that is formed so as to mitigate the causal perceptions of insurgency (even if done so for other reasons, and as much by accident as by Divine design) will lead to a nation that is much more resilient to the pressures of UW, ideology, ineffectiveness, etc that can lead to insurgency in states less well equipped.
Currently the Constitution of Afghanistan is an absolute train wreck disaster as in regard to its effect on insurgency. It is like they designed it to create insurgency. I know they designed it to prevent warlords, but the effect is the same. Accidental stupidity will kill you just as dead as the intentional variety.