The final phase of a revolution consists of guerrillas transitioning to conventional forces and political operatives becoming government officials. Determining whether you are combating an insurgency or supporting a revolution is absolutely critical to formulating a successful strategy. FM 3-24 describes the difficulty in defining an insurgency.
1-2. Insurgency and its tactics are as old as warfare itself. Joint doctrine defines an insurgency as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict (JP 1-02). Stated another way, an insurgency is an organized, protracted politico-military struggle designed to weaken the control and legitimacy of an established government, occupying power, or other political authority while increasing insurgent control. Counterinsurgency is military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological, and civic actions taken by a government to defeat insurgency (JP 1-02). These definitions are a good starting point, but they do not properly highlight a key paradox: though insurgency and COIN are two sides of a phenomenon that has been called revolutionary war or internal war, they are distinctly different types of operations. In addition, insurgency and COIN are included within a broad category of conflict known as irregular warfare.
This second-to-last sentence is decisive in determining the best course of action. If you are facilitating the final phase of a revolution, there will be aspects of the conflict that will not fit an insurgency template as you are instead facing counterrevolutionary warfare.
The less popular the government, the more ad hoc support for militants: Traditional revolutionary warfare consists of winning popular support, forming shadow governments, and eventually create liberated areas. Revolutionary governments brought to power by foreign forces have never made this connection with the population. Opposition to this revolutionary government will be a social movement of like-minded individuals and social networks, not a coordinated insurrection seeking to overthrow the newly constituted government.
Capitalism absent of the rule of law defines corruption: People crying out for justice do not want modernization. The quality of life should remain the same or rise. This is not to be confused with the standard of living, a common capitalist bias measuring income. In democratic revolutions supported by the United States, bags of money are typically exchanged for the passage of laws in line with Western philosophies on economics, governance, and human rights. In spite of this fact, American leaders are still shocked when they discover corruption in their new partner governments. "Clear-hold-build" will only serve to pay off locals temporarily willing to cooperate. A more accurate slogan to execute would be "clear-hold-govern."
Counterrevolutionaries are not insurgents: COIN principles applied to counterrevolutionaries can only bring about temporary improvements in security after fighting militants unwilling or unable to retreat. Counterinsurgency theory requires the isolation of insurgents in order to rejoin the population with the government. What if the government isolates itself from the people?
Measure the presence of government, not a decline in violence: Today dramatic drops in violence are cited as evidence that U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine works yet the political failings remain apparent. If there are no visible or measurable signs of the existence of a national government outside of the capital, that is not a success. Declaring victory by highlighting that violence is now limited to a few buildings destroyed every two months is akin to failing an exam but bragging about not receiving the lowest grade.
Albert Einstein said it best. "Peace is not merely the absence of war but the presence of justice, of law, of order--in short, of government." This is the essence of revolutionary warfare and the template for defeating counterrevolutionaries.
Posts
