A Civilian's View
by Colonel Gary Anderson
Download the full article: Counterinsurgency vs. Counterterrorism
Every twenty years or so, our Army has a furious internal debate over what kind of army it wants to be. We are not talking about an argument over civilian driven social experimentation such as the controversy over gays in the military; this one involves basic disagreement on how America's Army should doctrinally fight. With the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, nobody cherishes doctrine more than the U.S. Army and Air Force. The Marines consider doctrine to be a polite suggestion, and the Navy generally refuses to recognize the concept altogether.
The current debate raging among Army professionals is over how we should deal with insurgencies such as Iraq and Afghanistan. One side holds that the best way to defeat an insurgency is to win over the populace; this is loosely called population-centric counterinsurgency (COIN). The other school holds that the correct course is to kill the insurgents and destroy their cadres; this is known as counterterrorism (CT). The debate is less about tactics than it is about the future philosophical orientation of the Army beyond Afghanistan.
Download the full article: Counterinsurgency vs. Counterterrorism
Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel. He recently left the State Department after a year tour in Iraq.
About the Author(s)
Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel who has been a civilian advisor in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is an adjunct professor at the George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs.
Comments
I think this is a false argument. It is not an either/or proposition. It is about strategy and campaign planning and applying the right resources to execute the right combination of missions (at the right time and right place!). I know of no one (whom I would listen to!) who says we can kill our way to victory while at the same time I know of no one (again, whom I would listen to) who says that we should not be capturing and killing the right targets. The debate of my CT is better than your COIN or vice versa is the wrong debate to have. COIN and CT are not "strategies."
And for anyone in the Army to think that COIN is non-lethal, well...he or she needs to get in line for the urinalysis. I think people who understand COIN understand that there are very necessary lethal aspects to it.
But the real issue that I think COL Anderson is talking about is how to balance the capabilities and capacity of the force not in terms of CT versus COIN but in terms of major combat operations on the one hand and COIN and stability operations on the other; e.g., how to be prepared to conduct full spectrum operations? - and recognizing that not every unit can train to conduct every mission but many units will have overlap among the entire spectrum - particularly in our supporting arms. This is a discussion that is ongoing and necessary but it is not a COIN versus CT debate. I do not think we want to substitute CT for major combat operations.
An insightful and timely piece. One point to consider is the nature of friends and allies. When supposedly friendly elements, such as the ISF, are riddled with insurgent-terrorist-criminal operatives and sympathizers (I am here and see it everyday), you have a threat dynamic that must be accounted for as a practical, and not a doctrinal, matter.