Undergraduate Student, Help w/Counterinsurgency Debate

[Bob's World]

My Topic- Rise in Counterinsurgency.
My position (as given to me by my professor): Irregular warfare and counterinsurgency campaigns will define what the U.S. military will do in the future. The counterinsurgency doctrine emphasizes the use of minimal force, with the intent of winning the hearts and minds of a civilian population. The Army's adoption of counterinsurgency has made it a better more successful force.

My opponent's position: An internal Pentagon report is raising concerns about whether the Army's focus on counterinsurgency has weakened its ability to fight conventional battles. The claim that counterinsurgency improves the effectiveness of the Army encourages a more interventionist posture within the Army — a position that will make it easier for the Army to wage war in the future. The Army’s singular focus on counterinsurgency has in fact weakened it ability to wage conventional war.

A couple of points worth considering:

Realizing that a good debate requires a certain polarity of thinking, I would contend that while both of these positions make valid points and raise legitimate issues; neither is "right" as they both are intentionally overstated as absolutes. The truth, as it often does, lies somewhere in between and is often obscured by all of the smoke and noise of those taking polar positions yakking at each other (that only sounds like a reference to congress, the media, etc)

But before you can talk about insurgency, you need to gain some perspective for what it is; and before you can discuss a rise in insurgency, you must understand what has historically triggered such periods of popular political violence.

In general, insurgency occurs when a government "fails" its populace. Failure being not meeting some issue or issues that can fall across the full range of Maslows heirarchy that a significant segment of the populace feels is important enought to fight over, and where legitimate means for addressing the failure are not available. Not the same as effective governance, as government can be effective (British governance of American Colonies) and fail; or it can be ineffective and succeed. The only metric that matters is how he populace feels about its governance.

Insurgency falls into three broad categories: Revolution, to change the governance of the entire state; Separatist, to break some segment of the state off and form a new state; and Resistance. (In Iraq you see all three forms at the same time, and each requires a tailored approach to resolve).

COIN efforts tend to be long, drawnout affairs largely because Governments (politicians) are even worse than most people at taking responsibility for their shortcomings. Far better to blame such failures on others and focus on "fixing them," rather than being introspective and adjusting your own actions as your main effort, and addressing the symptoms of that failure as a supporting effort.

Finally, outbreaks of insurgency tend to occur after any major disruption ends a period of major governmental control that has suppressed the ability of a wide range of populaces to self-determine their own governance. As Spain crumbled as a major power at the turn of the century (led to popular uprisings and also a scramble by other states to take over payments on old colonies), At the end of WWI a major disruption of the European Colonial system occured with similar effect. The end of WWII led to many African and Asian uprisings. Concept of a common ideology for distinct events occurs as many of these populaces turn to an ideology of communism to rally the populace for change. Post Coldwar the areas released from suppression were central europe, the middle east. Russia in large part opted not to resist, so change was relatively bloodless in Central Europe. In the Middle East the US led west is resisting such changes to the political structures the worked so hard to shape and sustain, so there is conflict. Most of thest populaces are majority Muslim, so it makes a convenient ideology to rally the populace for change.