Curious, what is the professional, serious argument for CT without counterinsurgency? The problem is stated simply enough. In the first order, your adversary is far more free to range, assemble and attack as he chooses, then scatter in the face of pursuit. The defender is already in his interior, with little to no depth to trade and responsibility for too many exposed targets to maneuver the enemy into concentrating for a defeat in detail. On top of that, insurgents get another handicap in that they're fighting newcomers on their native battlefield, amongst people who they share more in custom with and speak their language and theirs alone.
The solution, elegant or inelegant, is obviously extemely frustrating to arrive at, with eight years in Afghanistan and six in Iraq having yet to produce truly satisfying results. But it seems plain on inspection that counterinsurgency doctrine at least attempts to mitigate the insurgent's advantage. It looks like the popular notion of CT just concedes them wholesale.
Bookmarks