Talk:Counterinsurgency

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Intelligence task force

On 13 May 2021, it was proposed that this article be moved from Counter-insurgency to Counterinsurgency. The result of the discussion was moved.

Neutrality

The photos of counter-insurgency operations of Germany in France and of Japanese in China during WWII must be added next to counter-insurgency operation by U.S. Marines in Afghanistan. Oterwise the article creates very positive impression about military police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.20.61 (talk) 00:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "state can discriminate between combatants and noncombatants while killing insurgents, but only by increasing the risks for its own troops, as the United States and ISAF did in Afghanistan under the leadership of Gen. Stanley McChrystal."

Holy unsupported and tendentious assertion, Batman. McChyrstal did...what? Newmann Noggs (talk) 00:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned & undated post

Why is there a 'neutrality disputed' tag on this page? There is no record of a dispute here, just discussion of spelling.

The Lancet report

I would like to clairfy the disucssion in the controversy section that refers to the lancet report. The margin of error on that report is so wide that the number used could be argued to be statistically meaningless. Using a number of 100,000 in a range of 8000-194000, and then extrapolating to other numbers portrays the data as a fact when it is really more of a guess.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673604174412/abstract

unsigned post by RedLyons 20:42, 24 October 2005

Recent edits

I removed the POV tag.

The President of the United States of America (right) said in his plan for total victory in late November 2005 that "America will not run in the face of car bombers and assassins so long as I am your Commander-in-Chief" and "Against this adversary, there is only one effective response: We will never back down. We will never give in. And we will never accept anything less than complete victory." [1]

What has this got to do with counter insurgency? Am I missing something? Regarding the photo: counter-insurgency is hardly an US only pursuit. Some pics of CI propaganda might be interesting, but I think the Bush pic is highly superfluous. - FrancisTyers 18:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Sorry, no wonder you were confused. I put this in the wrong article. I have now removed it. Wallie 19:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 09:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest move to Counterinsurgency

The page Counterinsurgency currently links here, and it should be the other way. Thirteen dictionaries [1] show "counterinsurgency" as the correct spelling. I could find no mainstream dictionaries that prefer "counter-insurgency" or "counter insurgency". The three terms are sprinkled all through Wikipeda and some of the external links. The whole picture tells me that the web in general and Wikipedia in particular have been sloppy regarding this word. It is time to clean this up, and I volunteer to make the request for rename and then fix the links pointing here if there is consensus. What do you think? Chris the speller 22:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the request. I cannot move the article myself because the correct spelling redirects here and has history. Chris the speller 05:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A Google search for '"counter insurgency"' turns up less hits than a search for 'counterinsurgency' (though not by much) --HasNoClue 08:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support counterinsurgency at Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary --Lox (t,c) 16:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose See discussion below --Philip Baird Shearer 15:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Oxford English Dictionary uses counter-insurgency. - FrancisTyers 15:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The spelling of "counter-insurgency" and "counterinsurgency" is part of the American English Commonwealth English divide. "The first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article" (WP:MOS) used Commonwealth spelling (. I have reverted the change to the page.

Google:

about about 32,000 for counter-insurgency -counterinsurgency site:uk
about 9,530 for counterinsurgency -counter-insurgency site:uk

Even if one searches on the whole of the Google index the counterinsurgency is only slightly more common:

about 456,000 for counter-insurgency -counterinsurgency -wikipedia
about 544,000 for counterinsurgency -counter-insurgency -wikipedia

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have said that "I could find no *free* mainstream dictionaries that prefer ..." I have no subscription to OED. Are there any Commonwealth English dictionaries online that let me peek without a fee? Maybe they have to charge a fee to pay for the extra hyphens? ;-) Seriously, though, I am not convinced that this is a pure American/British split, as I find "centre" and "colour" in dictionaries of American English (flagged as UK variants), but not "counter-insurgency". Proves how sloppy the American dictionaries are, you say? Maybe. Nor am I sold on the idea of googling the world to establish proper spelling; most material on the web is junk turned out by people who should have stayed awake in class. It may turn out that you are right, Philip, in which case I will add something to American and British English spelling differences when this is all over, but before it is settled I would like to lay eyes on a dictionary that shows an American/British split. Chris the speller 20:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Klaus Barbie?

Uh...minor point, but I have an issue with some of the links provided at the end of this article.

Referring to the Butcher of Lyon (Klaus Barbie) and some Salvadoran known as "Blowtorch Bob" as ‘counterinsurgency experts’ alongside Robert Thompson (a highly respected COIN practitioner and theorist) and Edward Lansdale (colorful, flawed but highly influential COIN practitioner who was Ramon Magsaysay’s right hand man) is slander by association.

My doctoral work is on insurgency/counterinsurgency and (aside from the importance of ARENA in El Salvador’s political history) I have never seen either Barbie or D'Aubuisson cited anywhere as COIN experts. I would suggest that, in the absence of documented evidence of their relevance to counterinsurgency, the links to Barbie and "Blowtorch Bob" be dropped.

Maybe they were put as "counterinsurgency practicioners" rather than academic experts? As an example of torture, mass murder and repression by governments fighting insurgents: in this case by Nazi Klaus Barbie against the French resistance, and the Salvadoran was presumably a fascist death-squad leader/torturer against left-wing guerrillas.

Unless it was just a joke in bad taste. Kingal86 16:17, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved them to the bottom of the 'experts' list pending complete removal. (Jschager (talk) 21:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Is there an anti-western bias here?

Perhaps I am misreading the article, or the bias is unintentional, but there seems to be a strong anti-western tone in the examples offered in the article, particularly in paragraph five, yet this seems true for the article as a whole.

Paragraph five reads:

In many conflicts, counter-insurgency operations can kill more civilians than the insurgents themselves. This may especially occur when the insurgents have a sizable support base among certain sectors of the civilian population (or among the population as a whole), or when certain regions are predominantly under their influence or control. Examples of this include the US anti-insurgency operation in Iraq, Israeli counter-insurgency during the occupations of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Lebanon, Indian Army counter insurgency operations in Kashmir and North-Eastern states of India, many anti-British colonial uprisings, the Caravan of Death in Chile, and many of the different paramilitary groups (such as the AUC) and death squads in Colombia.

First, is there any reliable evidence that the American anti-insurgency has killed more Iraqis than the insurgents themselves? Secondly, is it just my perception, or do the examples given in the article, with the exception of Mao, all point to either Western/European governments in general and Anglo-Saxon governments in particular, or regimes otherwise associated with those governments (Chile under Pinochet and to some extent India)? While reflecting on this, the idea came to me that some of the more extreme counter-insurgency operations, and indeed some of the more successful, have been practiced by non-colonial and non-western powers. The first example that comes to mind is Turkish operations against the Armenians in the early part of the last century. The Hama massacre in Syria is another. And of course, one should not forget Saddam's own counter-insurgency operations against the Shiites and Kurds, which, though brutal, were nevertheless very effective. All of these operations were models of success. Even in Algeria (See the See Also Section), counter insurgency operations did not end with the war of independence, but can be understood to be ongoing even today. Russian counter-insurgency operations, in Chechnya and earlier in Afghanistan have been completely ignored, as well as the recent conflicts in the Balkans.

As a soldier currently serving in the armed forces my reaction to the article's tone may have been a bit too instinctive, but it does seem justified. Perhaps the author chose the examples because they are the most prominent and well-documented. But still, the bias seems there. Or is it?

Chile and India aren't exactly in the West, are they? I'll keep an eye out for evidence that supports that more civilians than insurgents have been killed. Most of the academic writing on insurgency is on conflict in which the Western states are the counterinsurgents (Oman, Kenya, Malaya, Indochina, Vietnam, Algeria, Thailand...) perhaps hence the apparently Western bias. I would also say that arguably, due to GWOT and decolonisation, Western states have been in the most COIN wars. (FYI I'm not the original author). PlasticFork (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits removed during redirection?

Why were the edits from Dec 26th 2006 and Jan 3rd 2007 eliminated in reverting the redirection on Jan 5th? Was there something wrong with them?

When it comes to fixing the page name, it seems like we should be moving pages rather than wholesale copy/paste see WP:MV. Yes/no?? JXM 19:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the very reason they were reverted. They were made at Counterinsurgency after someone else had done a copy-paste move (and a move which is not linguistically appropriate, and which was rejected in the Requested move you can see on the talk page). See [2]. I reversed that copy-paste move and, separately a few days later, moved the page from Counter insurgency to Counter-insurgency, which is (separately) a more appropriate name. Separately, is this counter-insurgency experts accurate? Is this to be a list of anyone who calls himself a counter-insurgency expert and has an article on Wikipedia , or is it to be a list of "the" major experts. I could defer to your expertise in this matter, but there should be some sources on these people being "the" canonical experts. —Centrx→talk • 19:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

Why is Israels long counter insurgency against the PLO/Hamas and others not mentioned in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.16.3.247 (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute in the introduction

Counter-insurgency tactics usually involve human rights abuses and violations of civil liberties; such as internment, detention of family members of suspected insurgents as de facto hostages, extra-judicial killing of civilians and prisoners and torture.

This is incorrect and wholly inaccurate. Whoever wrote this has not read counterinsurgency literature.

Please explain your objection here, or simply deleted the incorrect text. --Uncle Ed 01:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three disputed paragraphs

Counter-insurgency tactics usually involve human rights abuses and violations of civil liberties; such as internment, detention of family members of suspected insurgents as de facto hostages, extra-judicial killing of civilians and prisoners and torture. Tactics similar to those of guerrilla warfare and insurgency are sometimes used by the governments themselves, such as assassinations of suspected insurgents, extra-judicial executions of suspected insurgent sympathizers and irregular paramilitary operations by covert operatives who may not wear uniforms.

In many conflicts, counter-insurgency operations can kill more civilians than the insurgents themselves. This may especially occur when the insurgents have a sizable support base among certain sectors of the civilian population (or among the population as a whole), or when certain regions are predominantly under their influence or control. Examples of this include the US anti-insurgency operation in Iraq, Israeli counter-insurgency during the occupations of the Gaza Strip, West Bank and Lebanon, Indian Army counter insurgency operations in Kashmir and North-Eastern states of India, many anti-British colonial uprisings, the Caravan of Death in Chile, and many of the different paramilitary groups (such as the AUC) and death squads in Colombia.

Two exceptions to this rule appear to be two recent 'low-profile' wars in European soil: the first are the 1970s-1998 Troubles in Northern Ireland, in which Provisional IRA guerrillas are said to have killed the most people, including the most civilians, when compared to the British security forces and Loyalist paramilitaries, and also the ETA-Spanish conflict (1968-2006?) in which the insurgent party keeps the greatest part of the crimes.

The above seems to be a critique of counter-insurgency. It's not sourced, and seems to rely on common knowledge. There's also more than a hint of anti-Western bias.

Instead of deleting it, I Wikipedia:Moved it to this talk page, so we can fix it, and then put it back in. (If that link is red, then we really need an article on "how to do this"! :-) --Uncle Ed 01:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably because this portion of the article was originally a screed against George W. Bush, and then it looks like it was "neutralized", but is still a problem because of the way it is presented. Even if "usually" were removed, we would still be left with the "usual" examples. This is at least partly because these examples are more recent and more spectacular. A similar issue can be seen at Talk:Insurgency#This isn't just about Iraq and Talk:Insurgency#Pejorative "common usage" and Iraq. —Centrx→talk • 09:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union troops

The use of post-Civil War occupation of the South is a confusing example. The unstated assumption is that the North won total control or dominance over the South. It is argumentative as to whether the outcome of Reconstruction and Rutherford Hayes' decision to pull Federal troops out of the South should be considered a loss or not. The same assumption is seen in reference to the Viet-nam War. The author does not equate the withdrawal of foeign forces from an occupied area a loss. Should it be or not? What were the intentions of the North during the Civil War and what were the intentions of the US during the Viet-nam War? Were those intentions met? There are a few whom refuse to accept defeat as the result of the Viet-nam War so the word withdrawal is emphasized rather than defeat, just like an honorable retreat was once used to describe US battle with Chinese forces near the Yalu river in the Korean War. In Reconstruction the South terrorized the black population and manipulated politics to secure the withdrawal of Northern forces and the securing of white supremacy and dominance. These goals were ascertained. You may say this means nothing, but I say it means a hell of a lot! The nation was not divided and stayed one, but white southerners ran their country like the Vietnamese wanted, "on their own terms." Not on northern or US terms. Ambiguity surrounds this issue of defining a win or loss. Perhaps when we understand that a weaker group of people are willing to sacrifice largely for something so miniscule to us as this quoted concept, then we may understand an overlooked aspect of this article's intention. Obviously in both examples of the Civil War and the Viet-nam War, withdrawal of foriegn occupied forces in this article seems to be a cover for protecting the pride and perpetuating the image of an undefeatable military. This is an antiquated and dying concept. We are HUMAN like everyone else. 130.127.109.85 22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Collective Conscious Whether you agree or not, it doesnt matter. During the Reconstruction period, the South did to the north what the Vietnamese did to the US. That is commit an insurgency and in the end, politics decided the withdrawal of both US and northern forces from both examples. The north kept the US united but on southern terms (white supremacy) and the Vietnamese eventually joined the free market economy (on their own terms).[reply]

Fairness

Yet in all fairness, this article does deserve recognition for being well written and researched. I thought if I beat you over the head about something I disagree with you on, I should be just as honest with what I liked about this article. I also found the article to come to a similar conclusion as I pertaining to the successful engagement and defeat over counter insurgencies across the world. It is the political war of the hearts and minds of the people. It doesnt matter how many soldiers or equipment we send into an area, if the people are prepared to fight for a thousand years with a committment to a belief of a cultural and national identity different from a foreign influnce or occupying force, then that entity deemed foriegn will inevitably undergo circumstances which may allow a decolonization or withdrawal. 130.127.109.85 23:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Collective Conscious[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the survey was no consensus to move--Fuhghettaboutit 23:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-insurgency → Counterinsurgency — According to 4 credible dictionary sources, the word counterinsurgency is one word without a hyphen between the two words counter and insurgency — References: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counterinsurgency; (Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1); The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.; The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition. -Signaleer 16:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC) -- discussion added by SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add # '''Support''' or # '''Oppose''' on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.

Support It clearly states under the Wikipedia Manual of Style (MoS), the dispute over the language British Vs. American spelling should only be British unless the article pertains to a British subject. Therefore, the article should be changed since counterinsurgency is not just a British subject. -Signaleer 07:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per User:Philip Baird Shearer above, plus Oxford (my own hardcopy of Concise Oxford, too), Chambers dictionary, DOD Dictionary of Military Terms, and WP:ENGVAR. Commonwealth English is just as acceptable as American. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Counter-insurgency is the UK/Canada/Australia/NZ spelling according to the Oxford dictionaries for those countries, while counterinsurgency is the U.S. spelling. This article spent its entire infancy as Counter-insurgency, and, although it was still a (rather long) stub when the first attempt was made to change the spelling, that change was objected to, and the spelling has been maintained. There was a stub Counterinsurgency operations that predated Counter-insurgency and was eventually merged into it, but it was so short that it can't count. (WP:ENGVAR speaks of the first major contributor.) Really, I have difficulty seeing the rationale for the "major contributor" rule here (instead of just "contributor"), since all that matters is what spelling the first person chose between the two possibilities, but the rule is there. Joeldl 06:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I proposed the move last year, the article has been in Commonwealth English, and it should remain so for that reason alone, as the topic is not predominantly American. What prompted my proposal last year was a search of free online dictionaries, and their collective deficiency in not explaining the Anglo-American divide on the matter of the hyphen. I hope that few additional editors fall into the same pit I did. Chris the speller 15:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose MoS, OED. Bolivian Unicyclist 12:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ENGVAR and the move discussion three months ago. Dekimasu よ! 03:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

In reference the British version of the word, please keep in mind that according to the Manual of Style (MoS) it clearly states that in reference to the |Dispute over style issues

"In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk." -Signaleer 07:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is not to deprecate British spelling in general-use articles, but to discourage the changing itself from one version of English to the other. Thus, the page you cite actually shows why this move proposal should not go through. Dekimasu よ! 03:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

China

The article has "Mao Zedong attempted to neutralize this advantage by simply taking away the civilian population that shielded the insurgents..." Chiang Kai Shek, surely? Unless this refers to some later insurgency under Mao Tse Tung's rule. P.M.Lawrence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.83.6 (talk) 10:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Conflicts

How about a list of COIN conflicts?

First Indochina War
Vietnam War
Algerian War of Independence
Malaya Emergency
Rhodesian Bush War
South African Border War
Iraq War
War in Afghanistan (British, Soviet, and NATO)
Second Boer War

I know that's not all - what am I forgetting? Pjones (talk) 02:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland, Cyprus, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Indian Wars (both in the US and in India - Britain constantly fought militants in the NWFP), Palestinian territories - both 1939-1948 and 1967-present - all over Africa, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia. . . it's an unending list. May not be a wise thing to have.

M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.177.130 (talk) 16:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-partisan

That redirects here, but I think this is not the same. Would for example German anti-partisan operations belong here? We at least need a dedicated section to WWII anti-resistance ops and policies (primarily German, but also Japanese and of the Western Allies). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've created an article on Anti-partisan operations in World War II. Please help expand! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal United Services Institute

Currently there is a wealth of information on this page "Insurgency and Counter-insurgency", by the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), some of which might help improve this article. --PBS (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States experience

The US, since 2005/2006 or so, has adopted many of the tenets of French population-centric counterinsurgency, and applied them to two wars, in addition to advising in several others (Pakistan, Philippines, etc.) The US has also been engaged in counterinsurgency warfare since Washington's presidency. As a result, given the detail in the section on France, the US section is grossly inadequate. Would also argue this about the UK section as well.

M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.177.130 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is to "take away civilians"?

Is it to "kill", "imprison" or "put on trains and send to remote settlements"? May be it's a term for specialists comprising all of these, but it's confusing. Being more specific and using laymen language would make it much more understandable. Could the use of the term be motivated by making a bad this sound nicer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.61.132.215 (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were do you find that expression? I don't see it in the article. Can you please be specific? Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malayan Emergency

Currently the article says:

"Despite British claims of a victory in the Malayan Emergency, military historian Martin van Creveld has pointedly noted that the end result of the counterinsurgency, namely the withdrawal of British forces and establishment of an independent state, are identical to that of Aden, Kenya and Cyprus, which are not considered victories"

I am not sure what the point of this sentence is. There are lots of other places where the British were in occupation and they are not now, eg India and Australia. The reason it was a victory was not because the British left (they left over 1/4 of the globe in someone else's hands) but that they did not leave the Malaya in the hands of the insurgents. -- PBS (talk) 11:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may disagree with van Creveld's point, but the statement is an accurate presentation of his views, which, if I were asked to analyze it, is that such a "victory", which can only be distinguished from a failure by the identity of the group who takes over once you leave, is rather pyrrhic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The observation that Creveld may be true but it is a biased point of view and a minority one. The immediate post World War II British Labour government were not great imperialists, and during the 1950s it was the policy of both major parties was to disengage from (abandon) the empire, both for moral reasons and strategic weakness. However the disengagement has to be seen within the context of the Cold War, when Britain left a country it tried to leave a broadly pro western government and preferably one that would remain in the commonwealth and an economy tied to the GBP (rather than the USD). So the reason it was a victory was because it was a Cold War victory, which was all that the British were trying to achieve. Countries which they left and that at independence or shortly afterwards fell into the Soviet sphere of influence were Cold War losses.

That puts an interesting spin on Pakistan and India. The Americans preferred Pakistan over India because they say Pakistan as "one of us" and India as another but not quite "one of them". The British government and English public never seem to have made that distinction between two cricket playing nations as anyone who plays cricket must be one of us. -- PBS (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested move/rename to Counterinsurgency, 2

I think this article should be renamed to counterinsurgency without the -. After studying COIN for 2 and a half years, if I have seen it spelt with a hyphen it's been too few times to even note it. I don't see how it's got anything to do with a US/UK divide either - just look at the titles of the books. Counterinsurgency is the common spelling across all academic and military sources I have read. They are all hyphen-less, regardless of whether they were written or printed in the US or a Commonwealth country. PlasticFork (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to re-open this, see the move suggestion above. Question: have any of the sources you've read been editions published outside the U.S. (as opposed to being written by non-Americans, since American book publishers alter spelling for an American audience)? If not, that would explain why you haven't come across the hypenated word, which is standard outside the U.S. Please review WP:ENGVAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality is apparently irrelevant. I can't any correlation between how it is spelled and US/UK. I just did a search on informaworld for counterinsurgency and counter-insurgency and the results were 188/5000+ respectively. Though the results became 69/65 when I searched for articles submitted in the last five years. Hyphenless may be a newer variation. Anyway - apologies for raising the dead! PlasticFork (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New: Just an observation that the description of counter-insurgency ("conflict against an insurgency by forces aligned with the recognized government") might best be worded differently. It seems that it can be read two ways. First, and the way I think is intended: conflict, by forces aligned with the recognized government, against an insurgency; Or secondly, where the conflict is against an "insurgency by forces aligned with the recognized government". I know that later makes little sense in that forces truly aligned with the recognized government can't really be an insurgency. But that's actually the point. The sentence order seems to leave this open to misreading. Maybe it's just a matter of punctuation. Just suggesting that someone else take a second look. Thanks. Feel free to move this where appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.122.120 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Government violence SA's?

No one denies that there is violence in the world or that war is a type of "government violence". But to establish a listing of "government violence" SAs is not appropriate. Why add famine to such a listing? Is famine the result of government violence? Can't private individuals commit torture? How much of police brutality is connected to counter-insurgency? And genocide? How is that related to counter-innsurgency? It is pure POV to say these subjects "are part of most counter-insurgency operations." By contrast, would it be appropriate to have a "Private violence" list of SAs or "Insurgent violence" SAs? Murder, arson, assassination, bank robbery, extortion, torture, mayhem, etc. would certainly be listed. But let's not go down that road. We are Wikipedia and NPOV should determine. User:Beyond My Ken was right to delete. --S. Rich (talk) 20:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that a government violence SA is appropriate is because counter insurgency is only one form of government violence. It makes sense to link together the various forms of government violence so that one can have a more complete view. While it might not be immediately obvious it is useful to know the connection between the various forms of government violence. As for your objects to the various individual species of government violence; allow me to explain and make my case. Famine: one must look only as far as Nobel Prize winning economist Amartya Sen and his widely accepted argument that in today's age famine is rarely due to the world or even a region's lack of food, but rather it is due to the way governments choose to distribute (or not distribute) food. Though it may not be as obvious a form of government violence such as shooting a man, it nonetheless is the government causing people to suffer and die. Genocide is clearly and form of government violence and is related to counter-insurgency through that fact. They are two different but related actions by governments that cause the death of its people. While it is obviously true that private individuals can commit torture, it is governments that commit the lion's share of the torture in our world. The cases of individuals torturing others by their own volition is a rarity compared to the systematic torture that governments throughout the world have taken part in. Again police-brutality is related the same way as genocide, but even more closely because of the usual increase in police force and brutality when a government launched a counter-insurgency. All these different forms of violence sit under the umbrella of government violence, and should be listed and linked together because of this relationship. I do not think that I this listing offers a non neutral point of view. I am merely linking together related forms of violence by governments and labeling as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkenney2 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed, and a consensus of editors is that this material does not belong in the see also, so I've reverted you re-addition of the material. Until that consensus changes, do not add it in again -- editing against consensus is disruptive editing, which is not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of Operation Lentil?

This operation was the most successful and the easiest way of dealing with insurgencies. Forget all this winning their hearts and minds bullshit, just expel the entire population and replace it with more loyal people. The Chechans were done until Khrushchev let them back in, causing Russia all the problems it has today with chechans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.29.165 (talk) 04:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word you're looking for would more appropriately be something like "ethnic cleansing". So, you are a proponent of ethnic cleansing?65.0.100.190 (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a section on COIN criticism

That's obvious enough. Anyone want to help out? Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1915 "insurgency"

There is only one author (Erickson, a fringe Holocaust denier) who claims there was an "insurgency in 1915". Contrary to these claims, it is proven that there wasn't any insurgency in 1915 by the majority of scholars versed in the subject; the Caucasus Campaign started in November 1914. Please, stop pushing these POV claims. --92slim (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there should be consensus to add a section related to what many users have classified as fringe claims. --92slim (talk) 20:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Counter-insurgency. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

As it stands, the lead has one interested party's definitions of counterinsurgency and insurgents, namely that of the US State department. Familiarity with the literature will tell anyone that the U.S. political definition is highly problematical, according to the technical literature, and therefore the lead passes off as an objective definition what happens to be the definition accorded the word by one state, the U.S. We are told that 'An insurgency is a rebellion against a constituted authority. What does that bolded phrase mean? In legal terms it means:

Those powers which the constitution of each people has established to govern them, to cause their rights to be respected, and to maintain those of each of its members. 2. The officers appointed under the constitution are also collectively called the constituted authorities.'

A huge number of insurgencies have nothing to do with a governing constitution securing the rights of the people under that constitution

The text further clarifies its POV spin by referring to 'duly-elected or politically recognized government.' In Guatemala a duly constituted government, the result of elections, was overthrown by a US backed coup in 1954, and ruled by a military caste whose devastations led to decades long Guatemalan Civil War, which suspended the electoral process for 25 years. Under the military, the country was 'recognized' politically but there were no illusions that the coup leaders constituted a legitimate authority, or that the genocidal policies it pursued were simply a counterinsurgency operation against 'insurgent rebels' as opposed to a large peasant society attempting to reclaim some rights. In British counterinsurgency theory developed in Malaya, the government in question must function 'within the law' and seek, while containing the threat, a political settlement, two conditions frequently lacking in 'counterinsurgency' operations, such as those conducted by France in Algeria. This article's narrow U.S. operational definition completely obliterates the very complex contextual differences in theatres of 'counterinsurgent' operations across the world. German Jagdkommandos conducted counterinsurgent operations against partisans throughout the territories it occupied. So?

I worked to begin fixing this blatant POV imbalance, by introducing sources that show how the previous definition was simplistic in its assertion there is but one definition of a term numerous sources tell us is problematical. My edit was reverted, I do not know why. Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because I wanted to hear your explanation, which I thank you for providing. Give me a bit of time to read and consider it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That the lead prioritizes the definition by one state (British insurgency theory is far more 'refined' in making distinctions) is, I would think sufficiently problematical per WP:NPOV, which I would think excludes a national POV from being presented as an objective definition, esp. when that definition is contested. I'm not attached to my provisory suggestion, but would appreciate it if you could comment on the merits here.Nishidani (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I think the only real problem is that the definition is given in Wikipedia's voice, so I've added to the text that the definition is that of the US Department of State. If there are other, divergent, definitions, they should be added to the text, with the same kind of labeling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is problematic that US definition is given so much prominence in the lead. The solution is not adding definitions to clog the lead but instead seeking a neutral definition that applies to all counterinsurgencies. (t · c) buidhe 07:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BRD on "Vietnam" and "Current situations" subsections under B. H. Liddell Hart

A few days back, I removed the subsections "Vietnam" and "Current situations" under the section on B. H. Liddell Hart, with the edit summary Remove sections on Liddell Hart on Vietnam and "current" insurgencies, as there are no sources given for his specific position on these, much less any influence. They are best (and already) covered in their own sections sans LH. (BTW, these are pseudo-subsections, not constructed as proper subheadings, contrary to MOS:PSEUDOHEAD).

This edit was reverted by Beyond My Ken (along with 3 other edits, 2 of which I was directed to restore), with the edit summary Please discuss these edits, which seem very anti-Liddell0Hart, on the talk page, Do not restore them until you have a consensus to do so.

So, per WP:BRD, here we are to discuss this edit. (The last of the 4 edits reverted should soon get its own BRD when I find the bandwidth.)

As stated in my edit summary, the sections have no sources. Technically, there is a source given for the Vietnam section, but it has nothing to do with BHLH; it's only a repeat of a source used for other purposes elsewhere in the article. It's misleading, mistaken, or disingenuous to use it to attribute statements to BHLH. In fact, the (proper) section Counter-insurgency#Vietnam later in the article uses the exact same language and source. Why repeat this? And why under BHLH, who died before the war was ended and analyzed?

The second of these two sections, "Current situations", is even more out-of-scope for BHLH. "Current" implies the current century, at least. With no sources given specifically linking BHLH to ongoing counterinsurgency situations is WP:SYNTH at best; with no sources at all, it's pure WP:OR.

There's harm in keeping these (WP's overall reputation), and benefit in removing them -- no longer misleading/confusing readers. Keeping these is also disrespectful to BHLH, as mixing thin unsupported claims with his actual accomplishments will tarnish his reputation overall.

Comments? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide a diff for each of the edits mentioned? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, Beyond My Ken. In chronological order, here are each of the four edits I made, along with its article section and my edit summary, that were all reverted together by BMK as "anti-Liddell Hart":

Edit 1, section B. H. Liddell Hart, Remove sections on Liddell Hart on Vietnam and "current" insurgencies, as there are no sources given for his specific position on these, much less any influence. They are best (and already) covered in their own sections sans LH.)
Edit 2, section B. H. Liddell Hart, Remove last two paragraph that *appear* to summarize LH in wikipedia's voice, effectively promoting him to sole authority here. Given that they have no sources, it appears as WP:SYNTH anyway.
Edit 3, section ‎Information-centric theory, De-cap heading per MOS:HEAD and as not a proper noun: ‎Information-Centric Theory → ‎Information-centric theory)
Edit 4, section Models, Un-bold, switch to normal font size, and move quote box to left as interesting, but not more significant that the text, and just a primary source anyway.

This discussion covers only edit 1. (Edit 2 has yet to be discussed, and edit 3 and 4 have already been restored as directed in this discussion.)

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any real objection for over two weeks, I will restore this edit soon. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. I will soon start a separate BRD discussion on the last of the four reverted edits -- identified above as edit 2. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 18:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BRD on paragraphs under B. H. Liddell Hart that do not mention him

This has some relation to the discussion above, #BRD on "Vietnam" and "Current situations" subsections under B. H. Liddell Hart, but is a separate WP:BRD discussion covering a different edit that the one in that BRD.

A while back, I removed two paragraphs under the section on B. H. Liddell Hart, with the edit summary Remove last two paragraph that *appear* to summarize LH in wikipedia's voice, effectively promoting him to sole authority here. Given that they have no sources, it appears as WP:SYNTH anyway.

This edit was reverted by Beyond My Ken (along with 3 other edits, which have since been restored after discussion), with the edit summary Please discuss these edits, which seem very anti-Liddell0Hart, on the talk page, Do not restore them until you have a consensus to do so.

So, per WP:BRD, here we are to discuss this edit (the last of the 4 edits that were reverted together).

As stated in my edit summary, the paragraphs have no sources. Generally, that alone is normally sufficient for deletion. It's worse here, because the paragraphs are presented without "according to Liddell Hart" or equivalent. Instead, they are presented in Wikipedia's voice, as universally accepted facts.

These do not appear to be facts at all, since, in the first of the two paragraphs, it incorrectly presents a couple of the most well-documented civil wars as being proof of how to successfully defeat counter-insurgencies. Civil wars and insurgencies are different. (The losing side in a civil war may devolve into an insurgency, but that wasn't the defining situation in either of these.)

The second of these two paragraphs starts "Essentially, then, only one viable option remains." This is basically an open declaration of WP:SYNTH, using the weasel-word of "Essentially" to avoid citing actual supporting evidence. None of what follows, sweeping statements about how all insurgencies and democracies work, is reflected anywhere in the rest of the article, nor in our B. H. Liddell Hart article. This goes beyond SYNTH; it has all of the markings of blatant WP:OR.

Liddell Hart was a man of many accomplishments. His notable theories on counter-insurgency are duly covered in the preceding paragraphs, appearing as duly attributed to him, and duly sourced. Keeping these two flimsy paragraphs is disrespectful to BHLH, as mixing thin unsupported sweeping statements with his actual accomplishments will tarnish his reputation overall.

I welcome any and all comments, but given the last BRD received no effective comments, I won't wait as long on this one before re-removing these two paragraphs. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm quite busy IRL and am not sure when I can get to this. Why don't you re-instate your edits, and when I have the time I'll take a closer look at them. I don't think that doing so will damage the article. My apologies. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the quick response. Very well, I've re-instated removal of the paragraphs and now consider the specific case of these four edits closed. Normal editing will naturally continue to improve the article as editors see best. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 00:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-insurgency → Counterinsurgency – more common spelling: NGRAMS, Google Scholar:[3][4] Contrary to what is claimed above, the non-hyphenated spelling is also more common in British English corpuses, at least in the last 15 years[5] (t · c) buidhe 06:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Webster's and Dictionary.com seem to agree that the non-hyphenated version is preferred.[6][7] Rreagan007 (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Counterinsurgency or counterinsurgency doctrine?

I think that this article is confusing two separate but related concepts: 1) the totality of efforts to crush insurgency, dating from the Roman Empire to present^[1] and 2) the doctrine of counterinsurgency, mostly developed during decolonization but with some earlier origins and precedents. Obviously, the doctrine is important and should be summarized in a section of this article, but not at the expense of also covering the practice of counterinsurgency. Not all counterinsurgency operations involved doctrine; for example, Rose Mary Sheldon states, "There is no such thing as a universal set of counterinsurgency principles, and it certainly would be an anachronism to search for an ancient doctrine of counterinsurgency theory. There was none, except perhaps to wipe out the insurgents." I suggest splitting off the coverage of doctrine into another article titled Counterinsurgency doctrines. (t · c) buidhe 07:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ As stated in the current lead, counterinsurgency is defined in scholarship as "the totality of actions aimed at defeating irregular forces" and by OED as any "military or political action taken against the activities of guerrillas or revolutionaries"

All counterinsurgencies represent a doctrine of some kind, whether stated or unstated, as long as there is a plan about what to do, and even if the plan changes over time, which amounts to a change of doctrine. Both actions and principles should be covered. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to go with what the reliable sources say per WP:V. Why does this article have a long list of theorists with what they thought about war? The war article does not extensively cover a list of military theorists and different country's warfare doctrines, instead this is covered in a separate article Military doctrine. It's not that doctrine does not belong in this article but it is totally out of balance. For instance the war article discusses ethics, effects, criticism of war, possible causes, but this article doesn't cover anything but doctrinal standpoints to the detriment of readability and broadness. (t · c) buidhe 10:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] As stated in the current lead, counterinsurgency is defined in scholarship as "the totality of actions aimed at defeating irregular forces" and by OED as any "military or political action taken against the activities of guerrillas or revolutionaries"

[1]