Effect of Context on Internal and External Actor's Perception on COIN

摘要

Tactical-level nuances between COIN by an external and an internal actor are barely distinguishable. The successful COIN practices for an external actor listed in the FM 3-24 COIN manual of the U.S. Army include maintaining a constant, forward presence with the population; acquiring and disseminating accurate and timely intelligence; and avoiding overreaction to insurgent activity. These well recognized and established principles are also applicable to COIN conducted by internal actors. At the operational level, however, the context in which both the actors operate is fundamentally different. COIN concepts, especially legitimacy, have a different connotation for each group of actors and require a different approach to achieve. The external actor's context is extremely complicated due to the presence of numerous actors, such as the host nation government and its forces, neighboring countries, and the domestic audience. In contrast, the internal actor faces relatively less complexity as it is dealing with an internal problem that has to be dealt with within the context of its own dynamics. Understanding these differences is critical for both groups. The internal actor has to realize that it cannot blindly adopt the COIN concepts and approach of the external actor as it faces a different context. At times actions and overtures that seem irresponsible and nonsensical to external actors have an internal history or caveat within whose domain the internal actor has to operate. The onus of developing the contextual understanding that leads to a suitable COIN approach lies with the internal actor. Unrealistic expectations based on external actors' perspectives will likely be detrimental to an internal actor's systemic understanding of COIN. The key is to understand that logic precedes every action and understanding of that logic is instrumental in comprehending the conceptual nuances between COIN conducted by internal and external actors.