CRITICAL THINKING
Counterinsurgency VS Counterterrorism in the U.S.
COUNTERINSURGENCY VS COUNTERTERRORISM IN THE U.S.
The meaning of insurgency is a rebellion against authority like government acknowledged as a conventional authority, such as United Nations as the standard ruler of the country, by forces that do not portray or represent a government, also a formal rebelling authority. A counterinsurgency war means that actions of government forces of military against such insurgents. The United States as the world’s super power was connected in so many operations of counterinsurgency in the past years. Winning victory in counterinsurgency war seems to demand destruction of all enemy forces which is impossible. The only strategy the democratic country like U.S. can do to achieve victory in a counterinsurgency war was to separate the insurgents from the local population. This separation can be only achieve by making sure that the counterinsurgency forces do not make innocent civilians become the victim of harm while doing the operation aimed towards the insurgents.
The counterinsurgency cannot be won as conventional wars like making a decision that it is not worth fighting, this means separating the insurgents to the ordinary people and convincing the population that supports the insurgents that war should not be fought. Every common people killed by the forces of counterinsurgency, legitimate or not, and accidentally or not, shows victory for the insurgents. This tactic of protecting civilians needs to be said and done through the” rules of engagement” (ROE) for the counterinsurgency war. Though the ROE that normally apply to the operations of the combat does not fit the counterinsurgency operations for they do not go further by protecting civilians for actions in military. The strictness of ROE is as good as strategy but as bad as tactics, by the chance of victory in counterinsurgency war is increasing, but the chance of victory through individual battles with it is decreasing (Coleman, S.).
A Policy discussion whether to adopt a counterinsurgency or counterterrorism strategy in Afghanistan nine years ago after 9/11, where they strive against international terrorism is in crucial point where decision must be made. Counterinsurgency and counterterrorism discussions on Afghanistan are lacking foresight, they focus too much on the intensity and defects of the insufficient and long period of commitments while refraining uncertain debates concerning what counterterrorism are composed at International level. U.S military and CIA are changed fundamentally how America opposes terrorism, it can be a new tactic in the warfare of counterterrorism. The counterinsurgency focuses on winning the genuine local population and launching good governance.
A former Lieutenant Colonel in the French Army namely David Galula is considered the Godfather of counterinsurgency studies. Galula said that it was very important for the insurgent to win the assistance and legitimacy of local population, promotion of good governance, and keep more troops in the area to provide greater security after the government military forces have taken it over, The focus on the warfare of counterinsurgency after 9/11 has influence the current efforts of counterterrorism at the center of any counterinsurgency strategy is the “heart and mind” approach, accumulating legitimacy to the eyes of the local population , and promotion of good governance (Rinehart, J.).
References
Coleman, S. (n.d.). Good Strategy, Bad Tactics: Ethical Considerations in Counter-InsurgencyWarfare. Retrieved from http://isme.tamu.edu/ISME09/Coleman09.html
Rinehart, J. (n.d.). Counterterrorism and Counterinsurgency | Rineheart | Perspectives on Terrorism. Retrieved from http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/122/html
