Is an insurgent an insurgent?

[Saifullah]

I see the problem the other way around.

The problem I am facing is that a COIN-strategy will not be implemented if the opposing force is not defined as an insurgent.

My challange is not describing, but defining. If the enemy is not an insurgent because he is not seeking to overthrow the state, what is he then when the result is the same?

[Ken White]

The problem I am facing is that a COIN-strategy will not be implemented if the opposing force is not defined as an insurgent.

Then don't implement a 'COIN strategy' -- what ever that means.

If the enemy is not an insurgent because he is not seeking to overthrow the state, what is he then when the result is the same?

He may not be your enemy but you'll likely make him one, thus Wilf's Accidental Guerrilla quip.

What State is he trying to overthrow? The Government of Afghansitan that we created without thinking it through? Will the result "be the same" or will it merely be something different than WE envision?

Serious questions: If they are successful, will the result really be the same? Are they trying to overthrow or do they just want more local autonomy? What is their likelihood of success? If it's better than 40% or so, is it possible that we need to relook our goals? What IS our goal?

Let me restate something I said above: "Then don't implement a 'COIN strategy'..." Turn that effort by said locals to assist your goals. Develop an alternative approach that avoids creating more hostiles and instead furthers your goals -- which you may have to modify from earlier designs. That's Plan A.

One should always have a Plan B. Plan B will probably entail fighting them whether you use a 'COIN strategy' or not.

[Bob's World]

I see the problem the other way around.

The problem I am facing is that a COIN-strategy will not be implemented if the opposing force is not defined as an insurgent.

My challange is not describing, but defining. If the enemy is not an insurgent because he is not seeking to overthrow the state, what is he then when the result is the same?

Sounds like a separtist movement, though perhaps not to form borders and a new government; more to supercede the governments authority over some region and populace within the state.

The government must address why this is happening, as well as who is attempting to do it. That is COIN. If you are assisting the GOVT, that is FID. If you are assisting this informal competitor to the Govt in his efforts to exert this unsanctioned control, that is UW.

[Ken White]

in describing a potential effort to some politicians who are nervous, then you could extrapolate your comment "If the enemy is not an insurgent because he is not seeking to overthrow the state, what is he then when the result is the same?" as a rationale. The result MAY be the same; whether it will be or not cannot be known but the potential effect is presumed disadvantageous so the result could be the same and therefor it is best resisted.

IMO, that is militarily specious and bad thinking but it's probably politically marginally supportable.

[Entropy]

I see the problem the other way around.

The problem I am facing is that a COIN-strategy will not be implemented if the opposing force is not defined as an insurgent.

My challange is not describing, but defining. If the enemy is not an insurgent because he is not seeking to overthrow the state, what is he then when the result is the same?

Out of curiosity, what part of Afghanistan and what is the local tribal/ethnic makeup?

More info would be helpful - I'm assuming from what you've said that the locals want to retain autonomy.