COIN -v- CT debate

[jmm99]

I think there is a lot of non-logical thinking in this area - i.e., COIN vs(?) CT.

Here I'm positing a "terrorist" as a member of a violent non-state actor, who does things that some define as "terrorism".

Posit two different situations:

1. A nation is beset by a domestic insurgency which, as part of its toolkit, uses "terrorism".

In that situation, counter-terrorism is part of the incumbant's toolkit to defeat the insurgency. The incumbant's toolkit includes the military effort and the political effort. It includes an intellegence, counter-intelligence and criminal justice effort which can flop on either side of the military-political coin. In any event, while one can split up tasks, COIN and CT are intertwined.

2. A world is beset by a transnational violent non-state actor, which acts through its own forces (sometimes doing things that some define as "terrorism"), but also acts through domestic violent non-state actors (case 1) via a loose or tight connection.

This resembles unconventional warfare in the traditional sense, except that the violent groups may not be able to reach the stage where conventional forces arise and can conjoin with the irregular forces.

To the extent that domestic violent non-state actors (insurgents) are involved, COIN and CT are intertwined as in Case 1.

To the extent that we look at the TVNSA as something akin to a "SOF Base" and "SOF Teams", more direct CT is called for and COIN does not enter the picture. This can involve direct military intelligence and action (M), but also has to include civilian intellegence, counter-intelligence and criminal justice efforts, which provides a political aspect as well (DIE).

All in all, the COIN vs CT debate is in itself a "red herring" (rotting from the head) and is likely to go nowhere good. In such cases as present Astan, it's a cover for other agendas, which are thought not to be as likely to sell politically.

This, BTW, is strictly an opinion piece.

What do you think ?

Cheers

Mike