COIN, Counterinsurgency, and Strategic Theory
Concept Failure? COIN, Counterinsurgency, and Strategic Theory by Colin S. Gray, Prism 3, No 3.
Much of the debate in recent years between rival groups of military intellectuals over counterinsurgency doctrine could be rendered more coherent and useful were it conducted in the intellectual context of general strategic theory. In a nine-part argument, Colin Gray addresses misconceptions and confusions inherent in the debate and discusses the need for a re-conceptualization of counterinsurgency through formal education in strategic theory for scholars. Gray concludes by stressing the fallacy of viewing counterinsurgency as either a principally military or principally political venture and the dangers of removing it from its conceptual setting.
“COIN is war and it involves some warfare, but it is conducted for political reasons. This logic is absolute.”
I have to admit, I was hoping for more from this author and from this article. I was hoping not to read yet one more treatment of COIN that failed to first take on seriously an analysis of Insurgency itself. But why study insurgency if it is simply a form of war and if the resolution of insurgency is simply a matter of waging war back and defeating the insurgent? If it were indeed so simple, one would think we (a very Royal we, including governments everywhere throughout all time) would be better at it, no?
I believe that resistance insurgency is war, a continuation of state on state conflict after the military and government of one state have fallen, yet the populace remains in the fight. Such an insurgent must indeed be defeated if the invading state hope to truly prevail and exercise its dominion over this conquered land and populace.
I believe that some separatist movements can, when certain conditions are met, also be war. The American Civil War is one, where the separating party began by declaring a new state, with organized government intact, and then prepared to defend that action in a very state on state form of conflict. But many, perhaps most separatist movement come of revolution, not political action, and are arguably not war at all.
Revolution is internal. It is political. It is illegal. But it is only at times violent (though in some cases obscenely so), and often only seeks to force the government to actually listen to the concerns of some disenfranchised segment of the populace and to make small, reasonable, but significant changes in how it goes about exercising its sovereign duties.
The relationships of the parties and purpose for action are far more critical to defining such conflicts than the degree of violence employed, or the nature of the tactics applied.
So, I found little new here that helps us get to a better understanding of the problem itself. Until we can remove the bias of governmental, military, and intervening perspectives from our thinking we will continue to come to variations of the same answer that has never really worked very well.
I wish Colin would have devoted a third or so of this piece to a discussion on insurgency itself. I would like to read what his thoughts on that topic are. But if this is absolutely simply war and warfare, why bother right? This is, however, the first step in good strategy. We must first seek to better understand the problem. The problem in general, in a very theoretical way, and then the problem actually before us, in a way steeped in the history and culture of what has led this particular populace to act out against the system of governance over them.
Bob:
Agree completely. Usually Gray produces first rate work but i was dissatisfied with this piece. To add to your criticisms if he is going to try to play the role of the one who sees the forest through all of the trees of the so called coin debate then he really needed to identify specific arguments within the so called debates that he has problems with. He only generalized various themes and arguments when specificity was needed, in my view.
Also I was struck by what seemed to me to be his inability to see that American counterinsurgency is in fact nation building. He appears to think that American coin and nation building are two separate things when they are in fact one in the same.
gian
To add to Bob and Gian, I’d recommend that Colin start talking to folks like Mark Kukis.
See Bob Tollast’s recent interview,
An Interview with Time Correspondent Mark Kukis
http://global-politics.co.uk/blog/2012/06/08/iraq_time_markkukis_roberttollast/
I agree with the general consensus that Gray’s article is non-specific. Perhaps that is the point? I’ve consistently thought over the past decade that many military professionals assume that insurgency is a very specific kind of war which a specific strategy and set of tactics could counter. Because of this they apply the recently established doctrine dogmatically without fully understanding it. However, as Gray points out (and even a superficial individual study can confirm), each is unique and the techniques needed in each case require an understanding of strategy. “Whether or not an insurgency should be opposed is not a general question. The answer always must depend on the specific circumstances. This is not so much a matter of COIN doctrine or techniques, including the military; rather, it is first and foremost a political issue.” In that I see an answer to COL Gentile’s observation that American COIN is in fact nation building… it doesn’t have to be and a better understanding of strategy by policy makers and especially by military officers of all ranks would enable a clearer matching of ends, ways, and means. Of course if a stable western style nation is the desired end-state then perhaps nation building fits as the proper means. However, I find it disconcerting that the military and national pundits seem to treat COIN as a very specific kind of war in which only a specific set of tactics will apply. It is doubly disturbing when it is described as separate and distinct from “counter-terror”. Both COIN and CT can be, and usually are, interconnected and can apply across the spectrum of ‘types’ of peace and war. They are all possible ways to apply means to a specific end.
-MAJ Derek O. (As a student at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff Collage I have to note that “the views expressed in this posting are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.”)