FM3-24 and FM90-8

[skiguy]

I've read 3-24, I have not read 90-8 in it's entirety (if you suggest I do before I ask questions, then I will)
What's the difference between counterinsurgency and counterguerrilla? (please keep answers at a BA level. )

It appears 90-8 tells you that you must work with the civilians, but 3-24 takes it a step futher and tells you how. Is that accurate?
Are they being used together right now in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do they compliment (can't hink of better word) each other or are there contradictions between the two doctrines?

[SteveMetz]

I've read 3-24, I have not read 90-8 in it's entirety (if you suggest I do before I ask questions, then I will)
What's the difference between counterinsurgency and counterguerrilla? (please keep answers at a BA level. )

It appears 90-8 tells you that you must work with the civilians, but 3-24 takes it a step futher and tells you how. Is that accurate?
Are they being used together right now in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do they compliment (can't hink of better word) each other or are there contradictions between the two doctrines?

Counterguerrilla operations are predominantly military. They may or may not be associated with counterinsurgency since guerrillas can be used in association with conventional war as well. Insurgency (at least from my perspective) is a strategy used by nonstate groups who cannot attain their objectives with a purely military strategy. They may or may not seek to seize control of the state themselves. Because they are militarily weaker than the state, they try and focus the conflict in the psychological and political realms rather than the military. Hence counterinsurgency takes place across battlespaces (military, political, psychological) were counterguerrilla operations are predominantly military.

[selil]

Insurgency (at least from my perspective) is a strategy used by nonstate groups who cannot attain their objectives with a purely military strategy. They may or may not seek to seize control of the state themselves.

I would only add that insurgents are non-nation-state actors. They may self identify as patriot or citizen of a nation but are not acting on the behalf of a nation or state. Diplomatic legitimacy not being the same as political legitimacy.

[SteveMetz]

I would only add that insurgents are non-nation-state actors. They may self identify as patriot or citizen of a nation but are not acting on the behalf of a nation or state. Diplomatic legitimacy not being the same as political legitimacy.

I'm not clear on the distinction between "non-nation-state actors" and the phrase "nonstate groups" which I used.

[selil]

I'm not clear on the distinction between "non-nation-state actors" and the phrase "nonstate groups" which I used.

My thinking is that nation state, nonstate, non-nation-state, etc.. are over loaded terms. They have multiple meanings depending on context and use. In the current example an Iranian (insurgent) running around Iraq would not necessarily be sponsored by Iran directly. The ideology of the "insurgent" might be religious. An Iraqi (insurgent) running around Iraq would not necessarily be sponsored by Iraq directly. Once again the ideology or prime motivations aren't necessarily "state sponsored".

In the former example the "insurgent" from Iran can be fighting to "hurt" the United States. In the second example the "insurgent" can be fighting for national identity, religious, anti-imperialism, etc... There are non-state (not of any nation (Iranian insurgent), and non-nation-state (Iraqi motivated by internal strife). In either case the insurgent may not be representing a government, but one is likely foreign to the conflict.

I'll be honest I've been struggling with the concept and attempting to work this out in figuring the difference between an internal insurgent and a revolutionary. Thereby defining the difference between an insurgency and civil war. This begs the question if there is a difference what is it? Yes I know we've discussed this before but we haven't seen but a split in the opinions. Just to create even more issues I've seen the American revolution described as a guerrilla war fought partially as an insurgency.

[SteveMetz]

My thinking is that nation state, nonstate, non-nation-state, etc.. are over loaded terms. They have multiple meanings depending on context and use. In the current example an Iranian (insurgent) running around Iraq would not necessarily be sponsored by Iran directly. The ideology of the "insurgent" might be religious. An Iraqi (insurgent) running around Iraq would not necessarily be sponsored by Iraq directly. Once again the ideology or prime motivations aren't necessarily "state sponsored".

In the former example the "insurgent" from Iran can be fighting to "hurt" the United States. In the second example the "insurgent" can be fighting for national identity, religious, anti-imperialism, etc... There are non-state (not of any nation (Iranian insurgent), and non-nation-state (Iraqi motivated by internal strife). In either case the insurgent may not be representing a government, but one is likely foreign to the conflict.

I'll be honest I've been struggling with the concept and attempting to work this out in figuring the difference between an internal insurgent and a revolutionary. Thereby defining the difference between an insurgency and civil war. This begs the question if there is a difference what is it? Yes I know we've discussed this before but we haven't seen but a split in the opinions. Just to create even more issues I've seen the American revolution described as a guerrilla war fought partially as an insurgency.

I've never understood trying to decide if something is an insurgency or a civil war. Apples and oranges. Insurgency is a strategy. It is sometimes used in a civil war. Some insurgencies take place within a civil war. Not all civil wars entail insurgency. I also don't think it makes sense to define something as "a" guerrilla war. Guerrilla is an operational and tactical method. That's like describing something as an armored assault war. The American Revolution, like the Vietnam War, had conventional theaters of operation and insurgent theaters of operations.

[skiguy]

Insurgency is a strategy.

Guerrilla is an operational and tactical method.

Thank you, Steve. That answers it (my original question) better now.

[selil]

I've never understood trying to decide if something is an insurgency or a civil war. Apples and oranges. Insurgency is a strategy. It is sometimes used in a civil war. Some insurgencies take place within a civil war. Not all civil wars entail insurgency. I also don't think it makes sense to define something as "a" guerrilla war. Guerrilla is an operational and tactical method. That's like describing something as an armored assault war. The American Revolution, like the Vietnam War, had conventional theaters of operation and insurgent theaters of operations.

So that being said can we say that guerrilla warfare, and insurgency are strictly the province of land warfare? Second point, was the French resistance during WW2 an insurgency or something else? Does this look like it explains the relationships?

[SteveMetz]

So that being said can we say that guerrilla warfare, and insurgency are strictly the province of land warfare? Second point, was the French resistance during WW2 an insurgency or something else? Does this look like it explains the relationships?

I wouldn't say "strictly" land warfare, although predominantly so. Many insurgents have some naval element, e.g. arms trafficking for the Viet Cong and FMLN, and water borne raids in the Niger Delta. I can't think of any with an air component, but it's not out of the question. Plus, there is the tricky question of the informational battlespace. That is a major one for insurgents but is not, strictly speaking, land warfare.

I would not consider the French resistance insurgency. Certainly it was guerrilla war. But I don't think the resistance ever though it could attain its strategic objectives on its own (although when I visited the French military museum in Paris, I learned how the the French resistance decisively defeated the Germans while a few Brits, Canadians, and Americans sort of lingered in the background).

[Van]

Didn't the Greeks conduct maritime guerrilla ops in the Mediterranean during WW II? And waterborne operations have been part of unconventional warfare and direct action doctrine since WW II.

Note also that one of Castro's and Guevaro's instructors (Alberto Bayo) was a pilot and recommended the use of aircraft by guerrillas. Not clear where it falls in the Venn diagram, but the drug traffickers/guerrillas in S. America have some airframes, don't they?

I think it is useful to consider the commonalities and differences between insurgency, guerrilla warfare, and civil war/revolution, but the land warfare bubble is distracting and confusing. Now to talk about these forms of small wars, we should probably agree on definitions first, but that might exceed the thread's load capacity. I agree with Steve that "guerrilla" is methodology, and "Insurgency" or "revolution" is a strategic aim. "Civil war" is a description, and one of questionable utility when you consider that very few, if any "civil wars" were purely internal to a nation, without some other power aiding and abetting one or both sides. The term creates a bias to avoid considering influences and interests outside the borders of the nation with the problem.

[BRUZ_LEE]

In my opinion the difference between GUERRILLA and INSURGENCY is very easy, when you just look at the words and their meaning:
GUERRILLA (in Spanish) means literally SMALL WAR, so it is purely military business and describes the hit-and-run tactics of small groups of fighters in comparison to the traditional warfare, where you have big armies confronting each other on an open battlefield.
INSURGENCY simply means that somebody tries to topple a ruling authority/government by any means possible. There is no limitation to the military fight (which is just a part of the whole insurgency). Special forms of insurgency would be a revolution or a coup.

The military today (a few at least) accept counter-insurgency being more than just military business, however the military gets all the money and still runs the show (Iraq: MNF-I; Afghanistan: ISAF) while continuing to neglect the more important parts (economic, social and political parts of counterinsurgency) of counter-insurgency. That's simply because military generals usually don't want to share authority and/or command.

BTW I found the Title of the older interim Field Manual "Counterinsurgency Operations" more appropriate than the new FM3-24 "Counterinsurgency" because the title suggests that the military part is the whole business.

BRUZ

[SteveMetz]

In my opinion the difference between GUERRILLA and INSURGENCY is very easy, when you just look at the words and their meaning:
GUERRILLA (in Spanish) means literally SMALL WAR, so it is purely military business and describes the hit-and-run tactics of small groups of fighters in comparison to the traditional warfare, where you have big armies confronting each other on an open battlefield.
INSURGENCY simply means that somebody tries to topple a ruling authority/government by any means possible. There is no limitation to the military fight (which is just a part of the whole insurgency). Special forms of insurgency would be a revolution or a coup.

The military today (a few at least) accept counter-insurgency being more than just military business, however the military gets all the money and still runs the show (Iraq: MNF-I; Afghanistan: ISAF) while continuing to neglect the more important parts (economic, social and political parts of counterinsurgency) of counter-insurgency. That's simply because military generals usually don't want to share authority and/or command.

BTW I found the Title of the older interim Field Manual "Counterinsurgency Operations" more appropriate than the new FM3-24 "Counterinsurgency" because the title suggests that the military part is the whole business.

BRUZ

I disagree somewhat with your definition of insurgency. First, some insurgent movements try and topple the government. Others do not and are content to simply carve out "space" which they can dominate. In fact, I believe this latter type is becoming the most common one.

Second, I disagree with your point that revolutions and coups are types of insurgency. I argue in my 2004 monograph that insurgency, as a strategy, is always defined by its protractedness. No group that has the power to gain its objectives through quick means like a coup will undertake insurgency.

I also believe that revolution is a different thing all together. Something is revolutionary because of the extent of its goals. Something is an insurgent movement because of the strategy it has adopted. Some insurgencies are revolutionary; some are not. Some revolutionary movements use a strategy of insurgency; some do not.

[selil]

I wouldn't say "strictly" land warfare, although predominantly so. Many insurgents have some naval element, e.g. arms trafficking for the Viet Cong and FMLN, and water borne raids in the Niger Delta. I can't think of any with an air component, but it's not out of the question. Plus, there is the tricky question of the informational battlespace. That is a major one for insurgents but is not, strictly speaking, land warfare.

Here is the original and as you can tell I'm still working it up. I'm trying to determine the relative merits and different aspects of the information battle space. Cyber Warfare, Cyber Terrorism, perhaps simply Cyber Conflict. It's a work in progress. One the greatest struggles I've been having while digging through the literature are the different levels and types of conflict and their relationship to each other. Like insurgent versus guerrilla regardless of dictionaries the concepts are used in a variety of ways.

[BRUZ_LEE]

I disagree somewhat with your definition of insurgency.

O.K. In just one sentence it is not possible to grasp everything. If somebody just wants to get control of a single province of a country, and not the whole country, than we have the "toppling of the government/ruling authority" also partially and of course it's an insurgency.

Attention: many on this forum think that what is going on in IRAQ today is purely an insurgency. WRONG WRONG WRONG

That is why we see a lot of fuss going on about "counter-insurgency" and the doctrine/definition etc. and that's why the "Counter-Insurgency" doctrine of Gen. Petraeus (of course he didn't come up with it, it's 45 years old. ... Trinquier, Galula, Kitson ....) will NOT work smoothely in IRAQ.

BRUZ

[Rob Thornton]

From Bruz,

The military today (a few at least) accept counter-insurgency being more than just military business, however the military gets all the money and still runs the show (Iraq: MNF-I; Afghanistan: ISAF) while continuing to neglect the more important parts (economic, social and political parts of counterinsurgency) of counter-insurgency. That's simply because military generals usually don't want to share authority and/or command.

I don't know Bruz - that makes the assumption that military generals are "all powerful". This is why the Inter-Agency debate is so hot right now - and also why AMB Crocker was right beside GEN Petraeus in testimony. Right down to who train HN police vs. HN soldiers has its own friction along with who mans the PRTs etc. Could we place more importance and perhaps work the coordination and synchronization better - yes - I think we have GOs like LTG Chiarelli, GEN Mattis, and GEN Petraeus who have provided us a pretty good model of using their authorities to do so (and yes there are probably some GOs who could have done more by comparison), however to realize the full potential of employing all the elements of power toward SSTRO objectives is beyond the title authorities military leadership are confined to.

Best Regards, Rob

[BRUZ_LEE]

Could we place more importance and perhaps work the coordination and synchronization better - yes - I think we have GOs like LTG Chiarelli, GEN Mattis, and GEN Petraeus who have provided us a pretty good model of using their authorities to do so ...

It is dead wrong to show up with these type of military protectorats (IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN) in the first place, no matter what the quality of the generals...

If you don't have a recognized gvnmt in place it was always a bad idea to impose one from the outside, because it's exactly this perception of LEGITIMACY that makes up the Center of Gravity against the cause the insurgents will sell. And if you look at the set-up in IRAQ (it's not hard for jihadists to sell that as an US occupation to the people) you will be able to see very quickly that this ain't gonna work.

I personally think that a kind of dictatorship/monarchy wasn't so bad a type of government for IRAQ. "Democracy" surely isn't working down there...(nor will it work in Afghanistan)
Wonder why the CIA (what do they get paid for?) couldn't simply show up with a clever "coup" instead of that OIF ...

BRUZ

[Steve Blair]

Wonder why the CIA (what do they get paid for?) couldn't simply show up with a clever "coup" instead of that OIF ...

BRUZ

Because they usually screw them up and end up on the front page of the Washington Post....

And do you have something of substance to contribute? COIN is MUCH older than 45 years...and most of the doctrine you mentioned earlier was re-discovered or modified by the officers in question. And I don't think "many on this forum think what's going on in IRAQ is an insurgency." There is an insurgency of sorts, but there is also a great deal of other "stuff" going on; to include organized banditry, terrorism, tribal conflicts, social conflicts, and general mayhem.

[SteveMetz]

Here is the original and as you can tell I'm still working it up. I'm trying to determine the relative merits and different aspects of the information battle space. Cyber Warfare, Cyber Terrorism, perhaps simply Cyber Conflict. It's a work in progress. One the greatest struggles I've been having while digging through the literature are the different levels and types of conflict and their relationship to each other. Like insurgent versus guerrilla regardless of dictionaries the concepts are used in a variety of ways.

I think I just had an acid flashback.

[SteveMetz]

It is dead wrong to show up with these type of military protectorats (IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN) in the first place, no matter what the quality of the generals...

If you don't have a recognized gvnmt in place it was always a bad idea to impose one from the outside, because it's exactly this perception of LEGITIMACY that makes up the Center of Gravity against the cause the insurgents will sell. And if you look at the set-up in IRAQ (it's not hard for jihadists to sell that as an US occupation to the people) you will be able to see very quickly that this ain't gonna work.

I personally think that a kind of dictatorship/monarchy wasn't so bad a type of government for IRAQ. "Democracy" surely isn't working down there...(nor will it work in Afghanistan)
Wonder why the CIA (what do they get paid for?) couldn't simply show up with a clever "coup" instead of that OIF ...

BRUZ

Actually, there were multiple attempts to engineer a coup in Iraq throughout the 1990s. See Ken Pollack's The Threatening Storm.

[Tom Odom]

Wonder why the CIA (what do they get paid for?) couldn't simply show up with a clever "coup" instead of that OIF ...

BRUZ

Because it is against the law and has been for three decades or so, despite what the conspiracy theoriists say about what I was dong in Africa..

As for having a legitimate (as in recognized by the people as being legitimate) government place as the key to inurgency, that falls into the frog with wings category. Insurgencies typically start when the government is seen as illegitimate.

If your point is we should approach government changes with extreme caution and careful thought, no argument there.

Best

Tom