Survival: Global Politics and Strategy

This article was downloaded by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek]
On: 24 April 2013, At: 05:18

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Survival: Global Politics and Strategy

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsur20
Counter-insurgency Redux
David Kilcullen
Version of record first published: 30 Nov 2006.
To cite this article: David Kilcullen (2006): Counter-insurgency Redux , Survival: Global Politics and
Strategy, 48:4, 111-130
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00396330601062790
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Counter-insurgency Redux
David Kilcullen
Downloaded by [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek] at 05:18 24 April 2013
Counter-insurgency is fashionable again: more has been written on it in the last

four years than in the last four decades. This is heartening for those who were in
the wilderness during the years when Western governments regarded counter-
insurgency as a distraction, of interest only to historians. So it is no surprise
that some have urged the re-discovery of classical, ‘proven’ counter-insurgency
methods.1
But some of this enthusiasm may be misplaced. Today’s insurgencies
differ significantly – at the level of policy, strategy, operational art and tacti-
cal technique – from those of earlier eras. An enormous amount of classical
counter-insurgency remains relevant. Indeed, counter-insurgency provides the
‘best fit’ framework for strategic problems in the ‘war on terror’.2 But much is
new in counter-insurgency redux, possibly requiring fundamental re-appraisals
of conventional wisdom.
The term ‘classical counter-insurgency’ describes the theory of counter-
revolutionary warfare developed in response to the so-called wars of national
liberation from 1944 to about 1980.3 The term ‘counter-insurgency’ was invented
in this period, which produced a canon of works now regarded as classics (and
listed as such in the latest US counter-insurgency manual).4 Key theorists included
David Galula, Robert Thompson, Frank Kitson, Bernard Fall, Mao Zedong, Che
Guevara and Vo Nguyen Giap. These classics still colour the modern view of
earlier theorists like T.E. Lawrence, Louis Lyautey and C.E. Callwell (whose
works are often seen through the lens of 1960s counter-insurgency). Classical
counter-insurgency thus constitutes a dominant paradigm through which prac-
titioners approach today’s conflicts – often via the prescriptive application of
‘received wisdom’ derived by exegesis from the classics. The 1960s theorists
David Kilcullen is Chief Strategist in the Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, The State
Department, Washington DC. This paper represents his personal views only.
Survival | vol. 48 no. 4 | Winter 2006–07 | pp. 111–130 DOI 10.1080/00396330601062790

112 | David Kilcullen
cast a long shadow, but current field experience seems to indicate their ‘classic’
version of counter-insurgency is less relevant for current conflicts.5
The concept of ‘counter-insurgency’ is logically contingent on that of ‘insur-
gency’. Counter-insurgency is ‘all measures adopted to suppress an insurgency’.6
Thus, the nature of counter-insurgency is not fixed, but shifting: it evolves in
response to changes in insurgency. There is no constant set of operational tech-
niques in counter-insurgency; rather, this is a form of ‘counter-warfare’7 that
applies all elements of national power against insurrection. As insurrection
changes, so does counter-insurgency. Hence, to understand modern counter-
insurgency one must first understand modern insurgency.
Insurgency is a struggle to control a contested political space, between

a state (or group of states or occupying powers), and one or more popularly
based, non-state challengers.8 Therefore changes in the state, its functions as an
independent polity or member of a regional community, or in the international
system, change the nature of insurgency. History shows that insurgents rarely
overthrow nation-states, but when they do there are usually world-historical
consequences.9 Thus, to understand insurgency we must understand the state
system insurgents are attacking.
Contemporary insurgency
Classical counter-insurgency theory posits an insurgent challenger to a func-
tioning (though often fragile) state. The insurgent challenges the status quo; the
counter-insurgent seeks to reinforce the state and so defeat the internal threat.
This applies to some modern insurgencies – Thailand, Sri Lanka and Colombia
are examples. But in other cases, insurgency today follows state failure, and is not
directed at taking over a functioning body politic, but at dismembering or scav-
enging its carcass, or contesting an ‘ungoverned space’. Chechnya, Somalia and
East Timor are examples. In other cases, like Afghanistan, the insurgent move-
ment pre-dates the government. This situation is covered in works on colonial
small wars10 but not emphasised in classical 1960s counter-insurgency theory.
Similarly, in classical theory, the insurgent initiates. Thus, Galula asserts that
‘whereas in conventional war, either side can initiate the conflict, only one – the
insurgent – can initiate a revolutionary war, for counter-insurgency is only an
effect of insurgency’.11 Classical theorists therefore emphasise the problem of
recognising insurgency early. Thompson observes that ‘at the first signs of an
incipient insurgency … no one likes to admit that anything is going wrong.
This automatically leads to a situation where government countermeasures are
too little and too late.’12 But, in several modern campaigns – Iraq, Afghanistan,
Pakistan and Chechnya, for example – the government or invading coalition
Counter-insurgency Redux | 113
forces initiated the campaign, whereas insurgents are strategically reactive (as in
‘resistance warfare’). Such patterns are readily recognisable in historical exam-
ples of resistance warfare, but less so in classical counter-insurgency theory.13
Politically, in many cases today, the counter-insurgent represents revolution-
ary change, while the insurgent fights to preserve the status quo of ungoverned
spaces, or to repel an occupier – a political relationship opposite to that envis-
aged in classical counter-insurgency. Pakistan’s campaign in
Waziristan since 2003 exemplifies this. The enemy includes al- In many
Qaeda-linked extremists and Taliban, but also local tribesmen cases the
fighting to preserve their traditional culture against twenty-
insurgent
first-century encroachment.14 The problem of weaning these

fighters away from extremist sponsors, while simultaneously fights to
supporting modernisation, does somewhat resemble pacifica-
tion in traditional counter-insurgency. But it also echoes colonial
preserve the
campaigns, and includes entirely new elements arising from the status quo
effects of globalisation.15
One of the most significant ‘globalisation effects’ is the rise of a worldwide
audience, giving insurgents near-instantaneous means to publicise their cause.
Globalised Internet communication also enables moral, financial and person-
nel support, creating a strategic hinterland or ‘virtual sanctuary’ for insurgents.
Classical theory deals with ‘active’ and ‘passive’ sanctuaries, methods to quar-
antine such sanctuaries and their effects on insurgent performance.16 But it treats
sanctuary as primarily a geographical space in which insurgents regroup or
receive external support. Today’s Internet-based virtual sanctuary is beyond the
reach of counter-insurgent forces or neighbouring governments, and its effects
are difficult to quarantine. Insurgents in Iraq are adept at exploiting global
media effects, while the ‘Global Islamic Media Front’ (al-Jabhah al-’ilamiyah
al-islamiyah al-’alamiyah) and al-Qaeda’s as-Sahab media production arm have
achieved new heights of professionalism.17 Internet-based financial transfers,
training and recruitment, clandestine communication, planning and intelli-
gence capabilities allow insurgents to exploit virtual sanctuary for more than
just propaganda. Classical counter-insurgency theory has little to say about
such electronic sanctuary.
As Oxford’s Audrey Cronin convincingly argues, cyber-mobilisation or ‘elec-
tronic lévee en masse’ is a major new factor. ‘Individually accessible, ordinary
networked communications such as personal computers, DVDs, videotapes,
and cell phones are altering the nature of human social interaction, thus also
affecting the shape and outcome of domestic and international conflict’,18 she
observes, noting that
the Internet is utterly intertwined with the insurgency in Iraq, for example.
Insurgent attacks are regularly followed with postings of operational
details, claims of responsibility, and tips for tactical success. Those who
use insurgent chat rooms are often monitored by the hosts and, if they
seem amenable to recruitment, contacted via email. Insurgent sites contain
everything from practical information for traveling to Iraq to morale
boosters for those currently involved in the struggle. Videos of killings by
the ‘Baghdad Sniper’ or ‘Juba’, who is claimed to have killed 143 American
soldiers and injured 54, are posted on the web. Cyber-mobilization
already has changed the character of war, making it much harder for the
United States to win in Iraq, and it has the potential to culminate in further
interstate war in the 21st century.19
The transnational character of modern insurgency is also new. Classical-era

insurgents copied each other (for example, the Algerian FLN copied the Viet
Minh, and EOKA in Cyprus copied the Jewish Irgun Zvai Leumi).20 But each
movement operated in its own country, emulation typically happened after
the event, and direct cooperation between movements was rare. Thus classi-
cal theory typically regards insurgency as something that occurs within one
country or district, between an internal non-state actor and a single govern-
ment.21 This is reflected in official definitions of insurgency.22 By contrast, in the
field today we see real-time cooperation and cross-pollination among insurgents
in many countries.23 Ayman al-Zawahiri has referred to a four-stage strategy in
Iraq, involving expulsion of US forces, creation of an Islamic Emirate in Sunni
areas, its extension to neighbouring countries and then attacks on Israel.24 This
goes far beyond classical single-state insurgent goals. Al-Qaeda operatives
pass messages between and among Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.25
Improvised explosive devices that first appear in Chechnya proliferate to Iraq
and Afghanistan. Iranian improvised-explosive technology appears in Iraq,26
and Pakistani extremists operate in Afghanistan.27 Insurgents in Iraq mount
operations in response to events in Lebanon, and conduct attacks in Jordan.28
Southeast Asian insurgents apply methods developed in the Middle East, which
circulate via the Internet or on CD-ROMs.29 This transnational pattern is part of
a deliberate al-Qaeda strategy, but there is evidence that non-al-Qaeda groups
are also noting and copying these methods.30
Modern insurgent strategy – being, not doing

Classical theory describes insurgent movements as seeking to gain control of
the state, or a portion of it. Galula asserts flatly that ‘the conflict arises from
the action of the insurgent aiming to seize power – or at splitting off from the
existing country’.31 This was arguably appropriate for twentieth-century revo-
lutionary and separatist movements.32
But the intent to replace existing governments or create independent states
is only partly evident today. For example, in Iraq multiple groups are seeking
to paralyse and fragment the state, rather than to gain control of its apparatus
and govern. Insurgents favour strategies of provocation (to undermine support
for the coalition) and exhaustion (to convince the coalition to leave Iraq) rather
than displacement of the government. This is a ‘resistance’ insurgency rather
than a ‘revolutionary’ insurgency.33 Insurgents want to destroy the Iraqi state,
not secede from it or supplant it. As Anthony Cordesman pointed out in March
2006, the
insurgency has not been able to … establish sanctuaries, win larger-scale

military clashes, or dominate the field … Much of its activity consists of
bombings of soft civilian targets designed largely to provoke a more intense
civil war or halt the development of an effective Iraqi government, rather
than progress towards control at even the local level … Provoking civil war
and undermining the Iraqi political process may not bring the insurgents
victory, but it can deny it to the Iraqi government and the US.34
Similarly, Afghan insurgents act as ‘strategic spoilers’, seeking to discredit

and undermine the government by targeting coalition forces, officials and
President Hamid Karzai’s support base in the Durrani tribal confederation.
Again, there is no apparent strategy to seize the instruments of the state. The
insurgents seek to expel foreigners, but have little to say about what might
replace the national government.35
Indeed, some modern insurgents lack any unified strategy, compared to clas-
sical insurgents. As Jeffrey Record and Andrew Terrill noted in 2004,
In Vietnam, the Communists waged a classic, peasant-based, centrally

directed, three-stage, Maoist model insurgency, culminating in a
conventional military victory. The Communists also had a clear and well-
publicized political, economic, and social agenda. In Iraq, small, scattered,
and disparate groups wage a much smaller-scale war of ambushes,
assassinations, car bombings, and sabotage against U.S. and other coalition
forces and reconstruction targets, including Iraqis collaborating with
coalition forces. Nor do the insurgents have an explicit set of war aims.36
This lack of a practical strategy in the Iraqi and Afghan insurgencies is reflected
in the absence of guerrilla counter-government, a feature of classical counter-
insurgency.37 ‘Local Taliban’ in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas

have acted against local criminals and sought to impose law and order in a
limited fashion.38 Some Iraqi groups have rudimentary local administrative
systems to intimidate the population.39 But there has been little attempt to
create permanent liberated areas, raise taxes, regulate daily life or control
social interaction, as would be expected if insurgents were trying to replicate
the ‘state capabilities’ identified by Joel Migdal.40 Analysts have used Migdal’s
model to map the effectiveness of insurgents as shadow governments.41 But
the parallel hierarchies42 of classical counter-insurgency are largely absent
today.
Classical counter-insurgency also tends to assume a binary struggle between

insurgent and counter-insurgent.43 In reality, classical-era insurgencies such
as Algeria and Indochina involved multiple insurgent movements, and most
immature insurgencies include numerous factions, though this complexity
was often not reflected in classical writings. But insurgencies today remain
multilateral even in their mature state, incorporating many diffuse, competing
insurgent movements. In contrast to revolutionary war theory, these conflicts
lack a ‘united front’. Rather, dozens of competing groups pursue their own, fre-
quently conflicting agenda. Field experience from Iraq suggests that it may be
harder, not easier, to defeat such a complex, inchoate and disorganised swarm
of opponents.44
The PROVN study,45 a masterpiece of best-practice traditional counter-
insurgency, argued that a sustainable, independent, democratic state was the
American object in the Vietnam War.46 Similar perspectives
The religious led theorists to describe insurgency as a ‘struggle for legiti-
macy’47 or ‘competition for government’.48 Fall expressed
ideology of this succinctly in 1965, arguing that a government which is
some modern losing to an insurgency ‘is not being outfought; it is being out-
insurgents administered’.49 The same view is expressed in the latest US

counter-insurgency manual.50
creates a But this assumes the insurgent has real-world objectives,
different and a practicable strategy that can be defeated by denying
these objectives. The religious ideology of some modern
dynamic insurgents creates a different dynamic. Particularly in al-
Qaeda-linked insurgencies, the insurgent may not seek to
do or achieve any practical objective, but rather to be a mujahid, earning God’s
favour (and hope of ultimate victory through his intervention) through the act
itself. Osama bin Laden alluded to this in an October 2001 interview with al-
Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni:
[Alouni]: …How can al Qaeda defeat America militarily?
Bin Laden: This battle is not between al Qaeda and the U.S. This is a battle
of Muslims against the global crusaders … God, who provided us with his
support and kept us steadfast until the Soviet Union was defeated, is able
to provide us once more with his support to defeat America on the same
land and with the same people. We believe that the defeat of America is
possible, with the help of God, and is even easier for us, God permitting,
than the defeat of the Soviet Union was before … Remember the saying, ‘If
they want to exile you, they can’t exile you unless it is written by God’.51
Insurgent operational art – the self-synchronising swarm

At the operational level, there are many similarities between today’s insur-
gents and those of the classical era. Insurgencies remain popular uprisings that
grow from, and are conducted through, pre-existing social networks (village,
tribe, family, neighbourhood, political or religious party).52 Insurgent opera-
tional art remains fundamentally a matter of aggregating dispersed tactical
actions by small groups and individuals, and orchestrating their effects into
a strategically significant campaign sequence. Similarly, the operational art of
counter-insurgency remains fundamentally concerned with displacing enemy
influence from social networks, supplanting insurgent support within the pop-
ulation, and manoeuvring to marginalise the enemy and deny them a popular
base. Thus, at the operational level counter-insurgency remains a competition
among several sides, each seeking to mobilise the population in its cause. The
people remain the prize.
But today’s environment ensures that this operational art develops differ-
ently than in the past. Modern insurgents operate more like a self-synchronising
swarm of independent but cooperating cells than like a formal organisation.
Even the fashionable cybernetic discourse of ‘networks’ and ‘nodes’53 often
implies more structure than exists.
Classical theorists considered the aggregated effect of many small incidents
– the ‘war of the flea’ – as the key driver even while recognising the impact of
well-publicised incidents.54 By contrast, modern communications compress the
operational level of war, so that almost any tactical action can have immediate
strategic impact. This makes counter-insurgency more unpredictable and even
less linear, rendering statistical trends55 less important as an operational driver
than the ‘single narrative’ of public perception. Again, this factor was accounted
for in classical theory but ‘globalisation effects’ have dramatically increased its
influence.
The term ‘strategic corporal’56 was coined to illustrate this, but media pen-
etration has created strategic privates (like Lynndie England, ‘whose smiling
poses in photos of detainee abuse at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison made her the
face of the scandal’),57 strategic marines (like the marine who killed a wounded
Iraqi in a mosque during the second battle of Fallujah)58 and strategic civil-
ians (like the Blackwater contractors whose murder sparked the first battle of
Fallujah).59 The contractors’ deaths provoked political intervention that forced
the operational commander to abandon a well-developed campaign plan and
instead pursue, then precipitately abandon, a set-piece urban battle.60 This con-
tributed to a strategic shift in the insurgency, although the roots of the crisis lay
deeper.61 More generally, given pervasive media presence, the demeanour of a

single soldier or official instantaneously communicates more about the state of
a campaign than any public information operation.
Media-driven political interference, of course, featured in classical counter-
insurgencies.62 And historical experience starkly illustrated the influence of
mass media.63 But media penetration has reached unprecedented levels, largely
through the emergence of insurgent mass media,64 with every incident in Iraq,65
and many in Afghanistan, Palestine and Chechnya,66 being recorded for propa-
ganda purposes by insurgent video teams. Political leaders’ involvement is
entirely valid given the importance of home-front morale as a success factor in
counter-insurgency. Educating these leaders, and proactively controlling ‘spin’
from incidents, is now central to the operational art in counter-insurgency.
Hence, most coalition operations in Iraq and Afghanistan now routinely include
embedded video teams to record events.67
A key component of insurgent operational art in classical revolutionary
warfare was the creation of local, regional and main force components able to
transition from defensive to offensive and, ultimately, decisive operations.68
Theorists like Mao and Giap spent considerable effort on the operational devel-
opment of insurgent forces, treating the transitions between developmental
‘stages’ as key campaign milestones.69 Classical counter-insurgency therefore
emphasised the creation of a range of security forces to counter local, regional
and main force insurgents and cadres.70
By contrast, today’s insurgents often employ diffuse, cell-based structures
resembling ‘leaderless resistance’.71 This generates far less organisational
superstructure than in classical movements. Such methods were recognised
in traditional counter-insurgency – ‘focoist’ guerrillas72 used this system, and
the Irish Republican Army developed a cell structure based on ‘Active Service
Units’.73 But today’s movements apply this approach on an immense scale,
creating mass movements without mass organisation and rendering classical
countermeasures ineffective. For example, the Phoenix programme targeted a

stable and well-developed Viet Cong infrastructure. No equivalent exists in
Iraq or Afghanistan, where independent cells and micro-movements cooper-
ate in constantly shifting alliances of convenience.74 So Phoenix-style operations
might have benefits in eliminating tactical ‘players’, but have less operational
impact than the original programme. Moreover, in Iraq (a community-based
insurgency) or Afghanistan (a tribally based insurgency), the blood feuds and
community alienation arising from this would be more severe than in Vietnam,
where professional party cadres (often from other districts) were key targets.
Logistically, classical insurgency assumes that the insurgents live off the pop-
ulation and resupply themselves from their opponents. Thus, the 1954 Conduct
of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya states that ‘the most important factor in
destroying the [Communist Terrorist] is to complete his isolation from the rest
of the community. He must get no money, no food or clothing; no help of any
sort.’75 The key operational concept of the Malayan Emergency – the Briggs Plan
– was designed to achieve precisely this,76 and similar efforts occurred in most
other classical counter-insurgencies.
But the economic relationship between insurgents and the population is
exactly the opposite in some modern insurgencies. For example, in Iraq the
insurgents’ primary funding sources in 2004 were courier infiltration and access
to buried caches.77 The insurgents were wealthier than the population, and rou-
tinely paid poverty-stricken locals to conduct attacks for cash.78 Thus, efforts to
isolate the insurgents (intended, based on classical theory, to hurt the guerrillas
and protect the population) had precisely the opposite effect, starving and thus
alienating the population, while leaving the insurgents largely unaffected.79
Donations from abroad also provide funds for insurgents: the emphasis on
videotaping attacks is intended precisely for sponsorship and fund-raising pur-
poses. In Afghanistan narcotics, corruption and extortion also provide funds.
Thus, the economic and logistics base of modern insurgency may be very differ-
ent from classical theory.
Insurgent tactics – the urban bomb

At the tactical level, one obvious feature of today’s campaigns is their urbanised
quality. Classical theory treats insurgency as primarily rural – urban insur-
gency is usually considered a supporting action (as in Vietnam, Malaya or the
Irish Civil War) or ultimately futile (as in some Latin American cases). Classical
insurgencies actually included several campaigns with urban components,
such as Aden, Algeria, Cyprus and Palestine. But these also had significant,
and ultimately dominant, rural components. The reason was straightforward:
insurgents must hide to survive, and in classical-era insurgencies in ‘colonial

or independent under-developed territories’80 concealment was better in rural
areas.
But this is often not so today, as is apparent when flying in Afghanistan or
Iraq. Cover and concealment are far greater in the urban jungle of Baghdad,
with its no-go areas and sectarian slums, than in the open desert outside the
Tigris and Euphrates valleys. Incidents in Iraq cluster in urban centres or areas
of suburban sprawl around Iraq’s major cities.81 The insurgent, as in classical
theory, continues to hide amongst the population. But in urbanised societies
(like Iraq) or countries with under-populated mountains, deserts and forests
(like Afghanistan), the cover is in the cities.

This has significant tactical implications: engagements are short
Media range and fleeting as in traditional insurgencies, but bystanders are
now always present and cleverly exploited by insurgents. Media
presence is presence is greatest in cities, fuelling propaganda-based tactics
greatest in that target the population to generate shock and provoke sectar-
cities ian unrest. Traditional counter-insurgency methods like fencing

villages, cordon and search, curfews and food control (accepted as
routine in Malaya) have drawn sharp criticism in Iraq and Afghanistan because
of the enhanced disruption they cause in urban neighbourhoods, combined with
the negative propaganda effect of enhanced media coverage.82
Internet, mobile-phone and television coverage (most houses in Iraqi
cities have at least one satellite dish, for example83) enables web- and mobile-
phone-based coordination, changing insurgent tactics and countermeasures.
Underground newspapers, pirate radio stations and posters still matter in places
like the North West Frontier, which lacks the Internet coverage and urbanised
population of Iraq.84 But perception management is vastly more complex when
the population has instantaneous access to media broadcasts intended for third-
nation audiences.85
Modern insurgent tactics centre on the urban bomb and its exploitation for
propaganda and intimidation purposes, rather than the more traditional rural
ambush. Improvised explosive devices, particularly suicide bombs, generate
‘good copy’ for insurgents and encourage sponsorship from supporters. They
also overcome the ‘lethality self-limit’ of classical insurgents, whose rifle-based
tactics meant that they had to field more fighters, and risk more casualties, to
generate greater lethality.86 The Irish Republican Army developed this approach
20 years ago, but unlike Northern Ireland (where acquisition, storage, transport
and caching of explosives were so difficult that insurgent quartermasters were
key players87), theatres like Iraq are awash with military-grade ordnance.
This has forced changes in counter-insurgent tactics – particularly for

patrolling. In classical counter-insurgency, patrolling is a key tactic designed
to dominate an area, reassure and protect the population, disrupt insurgents
and gather intelligence. But improvised explosive devices have forced patrols
(and private security details)88 to move down the centre-line of roadways, dis-
rupting traffic and alienating the population. And attacks on patrols usually
cause civilian casualties, making locals wary of foot patrols and frightened to be
near them. Far from finding ‘presence patrols’ reassuring, the population finds
them alienating and a source of danger.89 The intelligence value of patrols is
reduced, along with their ability to disrupt insurgents. Emplacement of snipers
overlooking likely bomb sites, employment of informant networks and targeted

raids have proven more effective than classical-style patrolling in Iraq and
Afghanistan. Thus the purpose of patrolling remains valid, but classical patrol
tactics may require substantial modification.
New counter-insurgency paradigms

It is dangerous to be prescriptive, since the latest cycle of counter-insurgencies
is just beginning, and there is undoubtedly more adaptation ahead. But, fortu-
nately or not, we have at our disposal a continuous live experiment, enabling us
to validate tentative hypotheses in the field. What follows is a series of prelimi-
nary judgements to be refined as events disprove them. They are presented in a
spirit of open inquiry, not as firm conclusions.
In modern counter-insurgency, the side may win which best mobilises and energises
its global, regional and local support base – and prevents its adversaries doing likewise.
Most fundamentally, we might reconsider the classical conception of counter-
insurgency as a competition for legitimate government, seeing it instead as a
competition to mobilise, interpreted in the broadest sense. Modern insurgents
may not seek to seize government, relying instead on their ability to mobi-
lise sympathisers within a global audience and generate local support. Thus
local government legitimacy may be a secondary factor. Likewise, the counter-
insurgent must mobilise the home population, the host country, the global
audience, the populations of allied and neutral countries, and the military and
government agencies involved. Success may be less about local legitimacy and
more about the ability to energise and mobilise support, and to deny energy
and mobility to the enemy’s support base.
In modern counter-insurgency, the security force ‘area of influence’ may need to
include all neighbouring countries, and its ‘area of interest’ may need to be global.
The classical single-state paradigm for counter-insurgency may no longer
apply, since insurgents operate across boundaries and exploit a global ‘virtual
sanctuary’. Legal and political considerations will probably prevent military

activity outside a single-country ‘area of operations’. But border security,
money transfers, ungoverned areas, ethnic minorities, refugees and media
in neighbouring states may all play key operational roles for the insurgent
– hence the counter-insurgent must be able to influence them. Similarly, the
insurgents’ propaganda audience, funds, recruits and support may be global.
So the counter-insurgent’s parent government must work globally to counter
propaganda and disrupt funding and recruiting. The people remain the prize,
but comprise a global audience rather than a local citizenry. This implies a
vastly increased role for diplomacy, global intelligence liaison and informa-
tion operations.
In modern counter-insurgency, the security force must control a complex ‘conflict
ecosystem’ – rather than defeating a single specific insurgent adversary. Classical
counter-insurgency focuses on securing the population rather than on destroy-
ing the enemy. But it still fundamentally views the conflict as a binary struggle
between one insurgent (or confederation) and one counter-insurgent (or coa-
lition). Modern insurgencies belie this binary approach, since there are often
multiple competing insurgent forces fighting each other as well as the govern-
ment, and the ‘supported’ government’s interests may differ in key respects from
those of its allies. Hence, we might conceive of the environment as a ‘conflict
ecosystem’ with multiple competing entities seeking to maximise their surviv-
ability and influence. The counter-insurgent’s task may no longer be to defeat
the insurgent, but rather to impose order (to the degree possible) on an unstable
and chaotic environment.
In modern counter-insurgency a common diagnosis of the problem, and enablers
for collaboration, may matter more than formal unity of effort across multiple agen-
cies. A key principle of classical counter-insurgency is unity of effort – unified
control of all elements of power, vertically from local to national level, and
horizontally between districts. Even this is a watered-down version of the mili-
tary’s preferred ‘unity of command’. But today, international aid organisations,
global media, non-government organisations and religious leaders are critical
for success, yet outside the counter-insurgent’s control. Many of these entities
will not accept direction, but can deny success unless collaboration is achieved.
Since command requires control, ‘unity of effort’ (let alone ‘unity of command’)
may be unworkable in this environment. Luckily, international relief organi-
sations have developed collaboration and information-sharing tools, designed
to build a common diagnosis of ‘complex emergencies’, enabling collabora-
tion in precisely this situation.90 A similar approach may work for modern
counter-insurgency.
Modern counter-insurgency may be 100% political – comprehensive media coverage

making even the most straightforward combat action a ‘political warfare’ engagement.
General Gerald Templer famously asserted that ‘the shooting
side of this business is only 25 per cent of the trouble’,91 while Perception
Galula described counter-insurgency as ‘80% political, 20%
military’.92 This certainly remains relevant to modern counter-
and political
insurgency in the sense that non-military elements of national outcomes
power remain decisive, though less well resourced than military
elements. But it could be misinterpreted as implying that some
matter
issues remain outside political leaders’ purview and subject to more than
conventional norms of combat. In modern counter-insurgencies,

this may not be so. Given pervasive media presence and near-
battlefield
instantaneous propaganda exploitation of all combat action, success
counter-insurgency may now be 100% political. Commanders,
even at the lowest tactical level in the most straightforward combat action, may
need to conceive of their task as a form of ‘political warfare’ in which perception
and political outcomes matter more than battlefield success. Counter-insurgency
specialists already understand this, but broadening it to conventional units and
‘big army’ commanders would be a true paradigm shift.
In modern counter-insurgency, ‘victory’ may not be final – ‘permanent contain-
ment’ may be needed to prevent defeated insurgents transforming into terrorist groups.
Classical counter-insurgency defines victory as military defeat of the insurgents,
destruction of their political organisation, and their marginalisation from the
population.93 Typically, destruction of insurgent remnants takes decades, but
once permanently marginalised they are no longer considered a threat.94 Yet this
may no longer apply to modern counter-insurgency, in which cell-based organ-
isations, bomb-based tactics, global communications and improved lethality
make it easier for marginalised insurgent movements to transform themselves
into terrorist groups. Pursuing classically defined victory over insurgents,
particularly those linked to al-Qaeda, may simply create a series of virtually
linked, near-invisible ‘rump’ terrorist movements in previous insurgent thea-
tres. Since terrorists do not require a mass base, this may perpetuate rather
than end the broader conflict. In modern counter-insurgency, victory may need
to be re-defined as the disarming and reintegration of insurgents into society,
combined with popular support for permanent, institutionalised anti-terrorist
measures that contain the risk of terrorist cells emerging from the former insur-
gent movement.
In modern counter-insurgency, secret intelligence may matter less than situational
awareness based on unclassified but difficult-to-access information. A final observation
is that today’s intelligence paradigm, which emphasises the acquisition of secret

intelligence from foreign governments, may be ill suited to modern counter-
insurgency. Secret intelligence is often less relevant than information which is
not classified by any government, but is located in denied areas. Feedback on
the effect of counter-insurgent operations on public perception may be criti-
cal. Human intelligence and tactical signals intelligence are clearly crucial, and
additional effort in these areas would be valuable. But in modern counter-
insurgency, where there is no single insurgent network to be penetrated but
rather a cultural and demographic jungle of population groups to be navigated,
‘basic intelligence’ – detailed knowledge of physical, human, cultural and infor-
mational terrain, based on a combination of open-source research and ‘denied

area ethnography’ – will be even more critical.
* * *
Today’s insurgencies differ significantly from those of the 1960s. Insurgents may
not be seeking to overthrow the state, may have no coherent strategy or may
pursue a faith-based approach difficult to counter with traditional methods.
There may be numerous competing insurgencies in one theatre, meaning that
the counter-insurgent must control the overall environment rather than defeat
a specific enemy. The actions of individuals and the propaganda effect of a
subjective ‘single narrative’ may far outweigh practical progress, rendering
counter-insurgency even more non-linear and unpredictable. The counter-
insurgent, not the insurgent, may initiate the conflict and represent the forces of
revolutionary change. The economic relationship between insurgent and popu-
lation may be diametrically opposed to classical theory. And insurgent tactics,
based on exploiting the propaganda effects of urban bombing, may invalidate
some classical tactics and render others, like patrolling, counterproductive
under some circumstances. Thus, field evidence suggests, classical theory is
necessary but not sufficient for success against contemporary insurgencies. As
Fall – who learned resistance warfare in the French underground, mastered
counter-insurgency in the 1950s in Indochina, and reapplied it in the radically
different circumstances of the American effort in Vietnam, before being killed
on operations near Hue in 1967 – observed:
There are no easy shortcuts to solving the problems of revolutionary

war. In fact, I would like to close with one last thought, which applies, of
course, to everything that is done in the armed forces, but particularly to
revolutionary war: If it works, it is obsolete.95
All this is, for the moment, a tentative set of field observations, many of which
could eventually prove incorrect. But they should give us pause in seeking to
‘cut and paste’ the tenets of classical 1960s counter-insurgency. We are experi-
encing a paradigm shift in the discipline of counter-insurgency, driven by new
expressions of one of war’s oldest forms. Much of classical counter-insurgency
remains, but in today’s conflicts we must apply its precepts with judicious scep-
ticism and willingness to admit error.
Notes
1 See William Rosenau, ‘Subversion experience as a commander, opera-
and Terrorism: Understanding and tions officer, intelligence officer and

Countering the Threat’, in The MIPT military adviser to indigenous forces
Terrorism Annual 2006 (Oklahoma City, during operations in the Middle
OK, National Memorial Institute for East, Pacific and Southeast Asia over
the Prevention of Terrorism, 2006), pp. the past decade. More importantly,
53–4; also the extensive media report- it reflects insights gained since 11
ing surrounding the publication of the September 2001, including firsthand
US military’s new counter-insurgency observation of counter-insurgency in
doctrine in 2005–06. Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa,
2 See David Kilcullen, ‘Countering Thailand and the Northwest Frontier
Global Insurgency’, The Journal of of Pakistan. The author was an adviser
Strategic Studies, vol. 28, no. 4, August with Indonesian forces in 1994–95,
2005, pp. 597–617. commanded an infantry company on
3 The dates take in the period from the counter-insurgency operations in East
beginning of the Greek Civil War in Timor in 1999–2000, was operations
1944 to the end of the Rhodesian Civil officer of the Peace Monitoring Group
War in 1980, and include all the wars in Bougainville during the final stages
of decolonisation associated with the of the Bougainville Revolutionary
end of European empires after the Army insurgency in 1998, served
Second World War, and the contem- as a counterterrorism adviser to an
poraneous nationalist, separatist and Arabian Gulf state in 2004 and has
communist-inspired insurgencies. worked with police, paramilitary and
4 US Department of Defense, FM3- military forces in Iraq, Afghanistan,
24/FMFM3-24, Counterinsurgency, Pakistan, Indonesia and elsewhere
Final Draft, 16 June 2006, paras 1–61, since 11 September.
available online at http://www.fas. 6 The Australian Joint Services Glossary
org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf. defines counter-insurgency as ‘those

5 This paper builds on evidence gath- military, paramilitary, political, eco-
ered in the 1990s during fieldwork for nomic, psychological and civic actions
a doctoral dissertation on insurgency: undertaken by a government to
David Kilcullen, Political Consequences defeat a subversive insurgency’. The
of Military Operations in Indonesia equivalent British and United States
1945–99, unpublished doctoral dis- publications use the identical defini-
sertation, University of New South tion, except for the absence of the
Wales, 2000. It draws on personal word ‘subversive’.
7 For a discussion of the concept of The Roots of Counter-Insurgency:

‘counter-warfare’, see Loup Francart Armies and Guerrilla Warfare 1900–
and Jean-Jacques Patry, ‘Mastering 1945 (London: Blandford, 1988);
Violence: An Option for Operational Walter Laqueur, Guerrilla (London:
Military Strategy’, Naval War College Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1977);
Review 53, no. 3, Summer 2000, pp. and Alexander Orlov, Handbook of
144–84. Intelligence and Guerrilla Warfare (Ann
8 This definition follows that put for- Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
ward by Gordon H. McCormick, Press, 1963).
who suggests that ‘an insurgency is 14 Discussion with Mahsud informant,
a struggle for power (over a political Northwest Frontier Province, June
space) between a state (or occupying 2006. The informant noted that each
power) and one or more organized, Mahsud family has contributed

popularly based internal challengers’. one fighter to the anti-government
Gordon H. McCormick, ‘Things Fall insurgency in order ‘to protect their
Apart: The “Endgame Dynamics” of traditional ways’ while Ahmadzai
Internal Wars’, RAND, draft paper, Wazir tribesmen have joined the fight
forthcoming, p. 2. But, to take into in a less-organised but more fanatical
account the transnational nature of manner. These patterns of behaviour
several contemporary insurgencies, I are highly consistent with the cul-
have replaced McCormick’s notion of tural characteristics of these tribes.
a single state entity facing an internal See Olaf Caroe, The Pathans (London:
challenger with the broader concept St Martin’s Press, 1958), pp. 390–413,
of a state or group of states confronting and Akbar S. Ahmed, Resistance and
one or more (internal or external) non- Control in Pakistan, rev. ed. (London:
state challengers. Routlege, 2004), pp. 11–29.
9 Ibid. 15 For a discussion of these effects in
10 C.E. Callwell, Small Wars: Their relation to Indonesia, see David
Principles and Practice, 3rd ed. (Lincoln, J. Kilcullen, ‘Globalisation and
NE and London: University of the Development of Indonesian
Nebraska Press, 1996 (first published Counterinsurgency Tactics’, Small
1896, 3rd ed. originally published Wars and Insurgencies, vol. 17, no. 1,
1906)); Department of the Navy, March 2006, pp. 44–64.
United States Marine Corps, NAVMC 16 See Thompson, Revolutionary War and
2890, Reprint of USMC Small Wars Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, pp.
Manual 1940, Washington, 1987. 38–41.
11 David Galula, Counterinsurgency 17 See ‘Al Qaeda Takes Media Jihad
Warfare: Theory and Practice (London: Online’ at http://www.middle-east-
Pall Mall, 1964), p. 3. online.com/english/?id=14500.
12 Robert Thompson, Revolutionary War 18 Audrey K. Cronin, ‘Cyber-
in World Strategy 1945–1969 (New Mobilization: The New Levée en
York: Taplinger, 1970), pp. 20–21. Masse’, Parameters, Summer 2006, p.
13 For examples of this pattern in 77.
resistance warfare see Robert B. 19 Ibid., p. 85.
Asprey, War in the Shadows: The 20 Bruce Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, rev.
Guerrilla in History, 2 vols (New York: ed. (New York: Columbia University
Doubleday, 1975); Ian F.W. Becket, Press, 2006), pp. 45–53.
21 See Kilcullen, ‘Countering Global source materials produced in South

Insurgency’ for a more detailed dis- Asia.
cussion of these issues. 30 CIA analyst, unclassified personal
22 See US Joint Publication 1-02 which communication, July 2006.
defines insurgency within a single- 31 Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, p. 3.
state, single-insurgent paradigm, as 32 See Thompson, Revolutionary War,
‘��
an organized movement aimed at the for a discussion of the differences
overthrow of a constituted govern- between ‘rebellion’ and ‘revolutionary
ment through use of subversion and warfare’ in this context.
armed conflict’. 33 I am grateful to Rob Smith for this
23 Kilcullen, ‘Countering Global insight.
Insurgency’; see also David W. Barno, 34 Anthony Cordesman, The Iraq War
‘Challenges in Fighting a Global and Lessons for Counterinsurgency

Insurgency’, Parameters, Summer 2006, (Washington DC: Center for Strategic
pp. 15–29. and International Studies, 2006), pp.
24 ‘English translation of Ayman al- 3–4.
Zawahiri’s letter to Abu Musab 35 Interview with former senior officer of
al-Zarqawi’, The Weekly Standard, British Intelligence, Kabul, July 2006.
12 October 2005, http://www. 36 Jeffrey Record and W. Andrew Terrill,
weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/ Iraq and Vietnam: Differences, Similarities
Articles/000/000/006/203gpuul.asp. and Insights (Carlisle, PA: Strategic
25 For example, see ibid. and other Studies Institute, 2004), p. 2.
correspondence between al- 37 Partly, this lack of counter-
Qaeda leadership in Pakistan and government simply reflects the insur-
Afghanistan, and insurgents in Iraq gents’ desire to fall back on tribal
and Southeast Asia. governance systems (pre-classical)
26 AFPS, ‘IED Components Moving or the focoist (post-classical) nature
Across Iraq–Iran Border, General of the insurgency in Iraq. But these
Says’, 17 March 2006. concepts have little traction in the
27 Interview with Pakistan government ‘watered-down’ version of classical
official, North-West Frontier Province, counter-insurgency adopted by some
Pakistan, June 2006. modern commanders (Rob Smith,
28 For example, in July 2006 Shia mili- personal communication, September
tias in Iraq conducted operations in 2006).
sympathy with Hizbullah fighters 38 See Pamela Constable, ‘In Tribal
engaged in conflict with Israel, while Pakistan, a Tide of Militancy’,
in 2005 al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia con- Washington Post, 20 June 2006, p. A11
ducted a hotel bombing in Amman, and ‘Waziristan: a New Strategy’,
possibly in an attempt to disrupt sup- Dawn, 24 June 2006, p. 7.
port for coalition forces in Jordan. 39 Attempts by the Shia Badr
29 See materials captured in the posses- Organisation to control the population
sion of Jemaah Islamiyah operative Dr in Basra governorate, and by Sunni
Azahari in November 2005, and the insurgents in Fallujah and Tal Afar to
so-called ‘Camp Hudaibiya manual’ intimidate local leaders into support-
used by Jemaah Islamiyah and Abu ing insurgent objectives, are examples
Sayyaf Group insurgents in the of limited attempts to create a counter-
Philippines, which drew on al-Qaeda government, but these lacked the
sophistication and elaborate adminis- 51 CNN, ‘Transcript of bin Laden’s

trative structures favoured by many October Interview’, 5 February 2002,
classical insurgent movements. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/
40 Joel S. Migdal (1988) identifies four asiapcf/south/02/05/binladen.
key capabilities of the state, includ- transcript/index.html.
ing ‘the capacities to penetrate society, 52 I am indebted to Gordon McCormick
regulate social relationships, extract of the Naval Postgraduate School,
resources, and appropriate or use Monterrey and to Colonel Derek
resources in determined ways’ (quoted Harvey for insights into the ‘small
in William Maley, The Afghanistan world, scale-free’ aspects of insur-
Wars (London: Palgrave Macmillan, gent social networks and the
2002), p. 13. enduring influence of the pre-war
41 Maley, The Afghanistan Wars; see par- Iraqi oligarchy on the current Iraqi
ticularly pp. 108–26 and 218ff. insurgency.
42 See Bard E. O’Neill, Insurgency 53 See McCormick, ‘Things Fall Apart’,
and Terrorism: Inside Modern for comments on this discourse.
Revolutionary Warfare (Washington 54 For a good example of this perspec-
DC: Brassey’s, 1990), p. 95 for a dis- tive, see Fall, ‘Theory and Practice’.
cussion of this concept in classical 55 Cordesman, The Iraq War, p. 3.
counter-insurgency. 56 See Charles C. Krulak, ‘The Strategic
43 See Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, Corporal: Leadership in the Three
for the classic exposition of this Block War’, Marines, January 1999.
viewpoint. 57 See Associated Press, ‘Lynndie
44 Personal observation, Taji, January England Convicted in Abu Ghraib
2006 and discussions with US military Trial’, USA Today, 26 September 2005,
intelligence officers, Baghdad and http://www.usatoday.com/news/
Kuwait, January–February 2006. nation/2005-09-26-england_x.htm.
45 US Department of the Army, Program 58 The marine was subsequently judged
for the Pacification and Long-Term to have acted in self-defense; see
Development of South Vietnam, 1966, Jamie McIntyre, ‘Marine Cleared in
http://www.carrscompendiums.com/ Videotaped Shooting’, 5 May 2005,
ccSEA/Documents/AD0377743_TOC. http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/05/
html. falluja.marine/index.html.
46 Lewis Sorley, ‘To Change a War: 59 Thomas E. Ricks, Fiasco: The American
General Harold K. Johnson and the Military Adventure in Iraq (New York:
PROVN Study’, Parameters, Spring Penguin, 2006), pp. 330–35.
1998, pp. 93–109. 60 Ibid., pp. 341–3.
47 Thompson, Revolutionary War, p. 25. 61 George Packer, The Assassins’ Gate:
48 HQ Malaya Command, The Conduct of America in Iraq (New York: Farrar,
Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya, 2nd Straus and Giroux, 2005), pp. 297–8.
ed. (Kuala Lumpur, 1954), especially 62 For a detailed discussion of
ch. 2, p. 10 and ch.3, pp. 1–5. civil–military tensions in classi-
49 Bernard Fall, ‘The Theory and Practice cal counter-insurgency see H.R.
of Counterinsurgency’ Naval War McMaster, Dereliction of Duty: Johnson,
College Review, April 1965. McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
50 US Department of Defense, the Lies that Led to Vietnam (New York:
Counterinsurgency. Harper Perennial, 1998).
63 Rob Smith, personal communication, catalyst or focus (foco) around which

September 2006. popular insurgency would coalesce.
64 See Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, pp. 73 See Martin Dillon, The Dirty War
197–28. (London: Routledge, 1999) for a
65 Personal communication, Central description of the Active Service Unit
Intelligence Agency officer, Baghdad, and specialised cell-based methodol-
February 2006. ogy applied by the Irish Republican
66 See collected videos at the SITE insti- Army to its much smaller movement
tute, http://www.siteinstitute.org, for of a few hundred active members only.
examples. 74 Personal communication, allied intel-
67 Personal observation, Baghdad ligence officer, Kabul, June 2006. See
and Taji, January 2006 and Khost, also Ahmed S. Hashim, Insurgency and
Afghanistan, June 2006. Counter-Insurgency in Iraq (Ithaca, NY:

68 See H.Q. Malaya Command, Conduct Cornell University Press, 2006) for a
of Anti-Terrorist Operations, p. II-10. comprehensive description of Iraqi
69 Mao’s Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla insurgent methods.
Warfare (May 1938) is the most 75 HQ Malaya Command, Conduct of
detailed exposition of this argument. Anti-Terrorist Operations, p. III-2.
70 Mike Forces, Regional Forces, Popular 76 Ibid.
Forces and main force ARVN in 77 Interview with Australian military
Vietnam, and Special Operations officer in an operational headquarters
Volunteer Force, Malayan Scouts in Baghdad, November 2004.
(SAS), Police Jungle Squads and 78 Australian intelligence officer,
Police Anti-Terrorist Field Force in Baghdad, August 2004.
Malaya are examples of this ‘force- 79 See Packer, Assassins’ Gate, especially
mirroring’ approach (see Kilcullen, pp. 251ff.
Political Consequences, for a detailed 80 Thompson, Revolutionary War, p. 21.
description of this element of classical 81 Cordesman, The Iraq War, and inter-
counter-insurgency). view with Multinational Force Iraq
71 See Louis Beam, ‘Leaderless intelligence officer, January 2006.
Resistance’, The Seditionist, Issue 12, 82 Ricks, Fiasco, p. 312.
February 1992, http://www.louis- 83 Personal observation, Baghdad, Taji
beam.com/leaderless.htm. Beam, a and Basra, February 2006.
right-wing extremist leader in the 84 Interview with Pakistan Government
United States, proposed an organi- civilian official, Khyber Agency, June
sational method for revolutionary 2006.
movements that has since been 85 Interview with senior Iraqi
employed by movements as diverse Government national security official,
as Iraqi insurgents, European Islamist Green Zone, Baghdad, January 2006.
movements and the Earth Liberation 86 McCormick, ‘Things Fall Apart’.
Front (see http://www. 87 Dillon, The Dirty War.
earthliberationfront.com/main.shtml 88 Personal communication, private
for a description). security detail commander, Baghdad,
72 The focoist school of insurgency, January 2006.
originating in Latin America during 89 Personal observation, Taji, February
the classical period, sought to employ 2006 and discussions with special
a cadre of armed revolutionaries as a forces officer, November 2004.
90 See examples relating to Afghanistan 91 Quoted in Simon C. Smith, ‘General

at http://www.acbar.org/index. Templer and Counter-Insurgency
php, the website of the Agency in Malaya: Hearts and Minds,
Coordinating Body for Afghan Relief, Intelligence, and Propaganda’,
and http://www.adf.gov.af/, website Intelligence and National Security, vol.
of the Afghan Development Forum. 16, no. 3, Autumn 2001, p. 65.
Both are interactive web portals where 92 Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, p. 89.
independent aid and relief agencies 93 Ibid., p. 77.
can share information, develop col- 94 For example, the Malayan Emergency
laborative approaches, pool resources, ended in 1960, but Malayan
deconflict activities and self-synchro- Communist Party leader Chin Peng
nise effects – all without belonging and the last band of guerrillas surren-
to a single overarching command dered only in 1989.

structure. 95 Fall, ‘Theory and Practice’.

Survival: Global Politics and Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Survival: Global Politics and Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Survival: Global Politics and Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Uppsala universitetsbibliotek]

On: 24 April 2013, At: 05:18

Survival: Global Politics and Strategy

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00396330601062790

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Counter-insurgency is fashionable again: more has been written on it in the last

Survival | vol. 48 no. 4 | Winter 2006–07 | pp. 111–130 DOI 10.1080/00396330601062790

Insurgency is a struggle to control a contested political space, between

first-century encroachment.14 The problem of weaning these

The transnational character of modern insurgency is also new. Classical-era

Modern insurgent strategy – being, not doing

insurgency has not been able to … establish sanctuaries, win larger-scale

Similarly, Afghan insurgents act as ‘strategic spoilers’, seeking to discredit

In Vietnam, the Communists waged a classic, peasant-based, centrally

insurgency.37 ‘Local Taliban’ in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas

Classical counter-insurgency also tends to assume a binary struggle between

insurgents administered’.49 The same view is expressed in the latest US

[Alouni]: …How can al Qaeda defeat America militarily?

Insurgent operational art – the self-synchronising swarm

deeper.61 More generally, given pervasive media presence, the demeanour of a

countermeasures ineffective. For example, the Phoenix programme targeted a

Insurgent tactics – the urban bomb

insurgents must hide to survive, and in classical-era insurgencies in ‘colonial

(like Afghanistan), the cover is in the cities.

cities ian unrest. Traditional counter-insurgency methods like fencing

This has forced changes in counter-insurgent tactics – particularly for

overlooking likely bomb sites, employment of informant networks and targeted

New counter-insurgency paradigms

sanctuary’. Legal and political considerations will probably prevent military

Modern counter-insurgency may be 100% political – comprehensive media coverage

conventional norms of combat. In modern counter-insurgencies,

is that today’s intelligence paradigm, which emphasises the acquisition of secret

mational terrain, based on a combination of open-source research and ‘denied

There are no easy shortcuts to solving the problems of revolutionary

and Terrorism: Understanding and tions officer, intelligence officer and

org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-24fd.pdf. defines counter-insurgency as ‘those

7 For a discussion of the concept of The Roots of Counter-Insurgency:

power) and one or more organized, Mahsud family has contributed

21 See Kilcullen, ‘Countering Global source materials produced in South

‘Challenges in Fighting a Global and Lessons for Counterinsurgency

sophistication and elaborate adminis- 51 CNN, ‘Transcript of bin Laden’s

63 Rob Smith, personal communication, catalyst or focus (foco) around which

Afghanistan, June 2006. Counter-Insurgency in Iraq (Ithaca, NY:

90 See examples relating to Afghanistan 91 Quoted in Simon C. Smith, ‘General

to a single overarching command dered only in 1989.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Survival | vol. 48 no. 4 | Winter 2006–07 | pp. 111–130 DOI 10.1080/00396330601062790