Tufts Alliance Linking Leaders in Education and the Services (ALLIES) hosted a panel discussion on the future of counterinsurgency featuring three experts in the field on Tuesday night at 6 p.m. in Barnum Hall.
Colonel Andrew Zacherl, International Security Studies Program military fellow at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, spoke first, detailing his personal experience in military information support and the challenges that counterinsurgency faces.
Zacherl explained that one must first understand what constitutes an insurgent, which includes those involved in armed revolt against a recognized authority. In recent years, however, there has been a rise in multipolarity, in which multiple armed groups are involved in an insurgency.
"It extends the concept of insurgency to situations where there is no recognized authority," he said, noting the Somali Civil War as an example.
Zacherl explained that current definitions of insurgents often do not include nonviolent movements, which he believes is a mistake given that some insurgent movements may be partially non-governmental organizations as well.
He highlighted three primary issues in the future of counterinsurgency, the first of which was the movement of population to urban centers, where targeting insurgents without collateral damage may be a serious issue.
"Urban areas become very attractive targets for ... terrorist activities," he noted.
The second challenge Zacherl discussed was the growing role of information and the leveraging of this information in conflicts.
"All activities will be subject to portrayal ... framing by all the parties," he said.
He explained that it is vital to understand how information will be framed and how actions will be portrayed by different parties to properly assess risks.
The third challenge Zacherl brought up was the human aspect of conflicts and the length of insurgencies. He explained that during a conflict, people take on different livelihood structures that often fall on the new state to deal with.
"If we want to be effective in counterinsurgency, we need to take a look at urbanization and at information," he said. "If we don't want counterinsurgency to become a perpetual state in many places of the world ... we need to take a hard look at livelihoods."
The next speaker was Stephen Henthorne, program manager of concept development at the Joint Civil-Military Interoperability Group, who spoke about stability operations and the need for a more functional connection between military and civilian organizations.
Henthorne said that stability needs to be treated equally alongside defense and offense. He added that he believes that increasing overall mission success will solve the basic problem, noting that this is something that could be corrected in the short run, although not much has been done yet.
"We really haven’t solved anything," he said.
It is ultimately most important for groups to work together through the entire process to bring an end to the root causes of insurgency for a true victory, according to Henthorne. He noted that the U.S. mentality of taking societies used to single rulers for centuries and expecting them to adapt and implement a U.S. system in a short period of time is particularly problematic, especially as funding for the country will decrease if the mission is not immediately successful.
Henthorne also discussed the U.S. "warrior mentality," which he said dictates that it is more warrior-like to be involved with larger, traditional conflicts rather than smaller, stability operations. He concluded that a coordinated effort is the best means to success.
"The operations that work are civil-military coordinated," he said.
Montgomery McFale, Minerva Chair at the U.S. Naval War College, was the third speaker. She discussed the past and future of counterinsurgencies and the necessity of socio-cultural understanding for success.
"In this country ... we have fought in many, many wars and insurgencies," she explained.
McFale noted that the United States tends to prefer conventional operations rather than counterinsurgency missions, given that they may be difficult, time-consuming and bloody.
"Small wars and insurgencies are treated in this paradigm of war fighting that we have as a nation as diversions from the main event," she said.
McFale highlighted the emphasis put on traditional warfare and conflicts, noting that the focus is on initial entry operations.
"Lethal operations ... are overvalued as a skill-set -- something that makes or breaks people's careers," she said.
McFale explained that the lack of socio-cultural knowledge is extremely detrimental to counterinsurgency efforts. She said she believes it is of the utmost importance to understand issues such as the relevant power structures, history, language and economic system of a country to be truly successful, noting the failure to convey this learning in conflicts such as the Burma Campaign, the Vietnam War and the War in Afghanistan.
"As a nation we could have done so much better," she said. "We knew exactly what we needed to do."
The three lectures were followed by a question and answer session open to audience members.
More from The Tufts Daily
