<p>Begreppet counterinsurgency har fått stor uppmärksamhet efter 2001 och USA:s militäraengagemang i Afghanistan och Irak. USA har bedrivit ett gediget utvecklingsarbete sedan dess och en ny doktrin för just counterinsurgency presenterades 2006. Redan 1964 utkom fransmannen David Galula med en bok i ämnet. Det har alltså funnits teorier om counterinsurgency sedan dess. Sovjetunionens engagemang i Afghanistan under 1980-talet slutade med att den afghanska kommunistregimen kollapsade. Viljan att vinna konflikten borde ha funnits där och precis som USA har dragit erfarenheter, borde något ha gjorts för att försöka vinna konflikten även på 1980-talet. Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka om de parter som försökte besegra den afghanska motståndsrörelsen gjorde det på ett sätt som kom att likna Galulas teorier om counterinsurgency. Konflikten har analyserats utifrån Galulas teori om upprorsbekämpning med både politiska och militära medel. Analysen har visat att Sovjetunionen och den afghanska kommunistregimen inte utvecklade sitt sättatt hantera konflikten i en riktning som motsvarade Galulas teorier. Den primära politiska orsaken var att regimen förlitade sig på förtryck för att försöka avskräcka motståndssympatier. Detta tillvägagångssätt ledde istället till ökat stöd för motståndsrörelsen. Militärt saknades medlen att befästa närvaro i nya områden där regimen kunde ha börjat utöva inflytande. I förlängningen innebardet att regimen saknade förmåga att bredda sin inflytandesfär.</p> / <p>The term counterinsurgency has received a lot of attention since 2001 and the U.S commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S has conducted thorough developmental work since then and a new doctrine on counterinsurgency was presented in 2006. As early as 1964, the Frenchman David Galula issued a book on the subject, and there have existed theories on counterinsurgency ever since. The Soviet Union’s commitment in Afghanistan during the 1980s ended with the collapse of the Afghan communist regime. The will to win the conflict should have been present there, and in the same way that the U.S have capitalized on their experiences something ought to have been done to try to win the conflict during the 1980s. The purpose of this study is to examine whether the parties involved in the fight against the Afghan resistance acted in a way that resembles Galula’s theories on counterinsurgency. The conflict has been analyzed with Galulas theories on how to defeat an insurgency by both political and military means. The analysis has shown that the Soviet Union and the Afghan communist regime did not develop their way of handling the conflict in a way which is consistent with Galula’s theories. The primary political cause was that the regime put its trust in oppression in their attempts to discourage resistance sympathies. This approach resulted in an increase in support for the Afghan resistance rather than the support of the regime. Militarily, the lack of means to secure the regime’s political presence in new areas meant that the regime was unable to broaden its sphere of influence.</p>

Begreppet counterinsurgency har fått stor uppmärksamhet efter 2001 och USA:s militäraengagemang i Afghanistan och Irak. USA har bedrivit ett gediget utvecklingsarbete sedan dess och en ny doktrin för just counterinsurgency presenterades 2006. Redan 1964 utkom fransmannen David Galula med en bok i ämnet. Det har alltså funnits teorier om counterinsurgency sedan dess. Sovjetunionens engagemang i Afghanistan under 1980-talet slutade med att den afghanska kommunistregimen kollapsade. Viljan att vinna konflikten borde ha funnits där och precis som USA har dragit erfarenheter, borde något ha gjorts för att försöka vinna konflikten även på 1980-talet. Syftet med denna studie är att undersöka om de parter som försökte besegra den afghanska motståndsrörelsen gjorde det på ett sätt som kom att likna Galulas teorier om counterinsurgency. Konflikten har analyserats utifrån Galulas teori om upprorsbekämpning med både politiska och militära medel. Analysen har visat att Sovjetunionen och den afghanska kommunistregimen inte utvecklade sitt sättatt hantera konflikten i en riktning som motsvarade Galulas teorier. Den primära politiska orsaken var att regimen förlitade sig på förtryck för att försöka avskräcka motståndssympatier. Detta tillvägagångssätt ledde istället till ökat stöd för motståndsrörelsen. Militärt saknades medlen att befästa närvaro i nya områden där regimen kunde ha börjat utöva inflytande. I förlängningen innebardet att regimen saknade förmåga att bredda sin inflytandesfär. / The term counterinsurgency has received a lot of attention since 2001 and the U.S commitment in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S has conducted thorough developmental work since then and a new doctrine on counterinsurgency was presented in 2006. As early as 1964, the Frenchman David Galula issued a book on the subject, and there have existed theories on counterinsurgency ever since. The Soviet Union’s commitment in Afghanistan during the 1980s ended with the collapse of the Afghan communist regime. The will to win the conflict should have been present there, and in the same way that the U.S have capitalized on their experiences something ought to have been done to try to win the conflict during the 1980s. The purpose of this study is to examine whether the parties involved in the fight against the Afghan resistance acted in a way that resembles Galula’s theories on counterinsurgency. The conflict has been analyzed with Galulas theories on how to defeat an insurgency by both political and military means. The analysis has shown that the Soviet Union and the Afghan communist regime did not develop their way of handling the conflict in a way which is consistent with Galula’s theories. The primary political cause was that the regime put its trust in oppression in their attempts to discourage resistance sympathies. This approach resulted in an increase in support for the Afghan resistance rather than the support of the regime. Militarily, the lack of means to secure the regime’s political presence in new areas meant that the regime was unable to broaden its sphere of influence.

In 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan with the intention to secure the Afghan communist regime from collapsing. Rebels, called the Mujahideen, began to resist the invasion and the Soviet Union soon found themselves fighting a tedious guerrilla war. The aim of this paper is to examine why the Soviet Union lost this asymmetrical war, even though they had a clear military superiority and stronger actors historically tend to win these types of conflicts. This paper has the ambition to explain in what ways soviet forces lacked proper understanding of not only asymmetrical warfare, but also counterinsurgency warfare, using theories that more closely look at the importance of strategic interactions between actors in asymmetrical wars, and principles of conducting successful counterinsurgencies. The empirical findings can succinctly be summarized by two factors: The Soviet Union was, despite tremendous effort, incapable of breaking Mujahideens will to fight. Insufficient attention was also paid towards cultivating trust with the Afghan populace, nor were strategies employed to rally support for the war against the Mujahideen.

Au cours des dernières décennies, l’augmentation du nombre de guerres irrégulières place les armées modernes dans une situation délicate. Pour pouvoir relever ce nouveau défi, ces organisations militaires, avant tout destinées à mener des guerres interétatiques, se doivent d’innover. Plusieurs cas historiques montrent comment, face à de nouvelles formes de conflit, certaines armées se sont lancées dans un processus d’innovation. Le cas de l’armée française en Algérie en est un. L’objectif de ce mémoire est de comprendre comment l’innovation a émergé lors du conflit, et comment elle s’est diffusée au sein de l’organisation militaire. Un survol de la stratégie française en Algérie va permettre de dégager trois principales innovations : La mise en place de la doctrine de la guerre révolutionnaire, la création des Sections Administratives Spécialisées et l’approche de David Galula. L’étude de ses trois cas nous montre que, durant la Guerre d’Algérie, l’innovation provenait principalement des militaires, plus précisément du sommet de la hiérarchie. Cependant, certains exemples d’innovation par le bas existent. Dans ces cas-là, la diffusion se fera via la doctrine informelle. L’exemple de Galula nous prouve néanmoins qu’une innovation se diffuse beaucoup plus difficilement lorsqu’elle émane des hommes de terrain. / During the last decades, the increasing number of irregular wars brought the modern armies into a delicate situation. In order to overcome this new challenge, these military organizations primarily designed for interstate wars had to innovate. Many historical cases show how certain armies have launched into innovation processes because of new forms of conflict. The case of the French army in Algeria is a good example. The main goal of this paper is to understand how innovation has emerged during the conflict, and how it has diffused within the military organization. A glance at the French strategy in Algeria will allow us to highlight three main innovations: the development of the Revolutionary Warfare doctrine, the creation of “Sections Administratives Specialisées, and the David Galula approach. The analysis of these three study cases shows that innovation came mainly from militaries during the Algerian war, particularly those on top of the hierarchy. However, certain examples of bottom-up innovations do exist. In these cases, diffusion will take place via the informal doctrine. Nevertheless, the Galula example demonstrates that an innovation will diffuse with more difficulty when it comes from people on the ground.

Au cours des dernières décennies, l’augmentation du nombre de guerres irrégulières place les armées modernes dans une situation délicate. Pour pouvoir relever ce nouveau défi, ces organisations militaires, avant tout destinées à mener des guerres interétatiques, se doivent d’innover. Plusieurs cas historiques montrent comment, face à de nouvelles formes de conflit, certaines armées se sont lancées dans un processus d’innovation. Le cas de l’armée française en Algérie en est un. L’objectif de ce mémoire est de comprendre comment l’innovation a émergé lors du conflit, et comment elle s’est diffusée au sein de l’organisation militaire. Un survol de la stratégie française en Algérie va permettre de dégager trois principales innovations : La mise en place de la doctrine de la guerre révolutionnaire, la création des Sections Administratives Spécialisées et l’approche de David Galula. L’étude de ses trois cas nous montre que, durant la Guerre d’Algérie, l’innovation provenait principalement des militaires, plus précisément du sommet de la hiérarchie. Cependant, certains exemples d’innovation par le bas existent. Dans ces cas-là, la diffusion se fera via la doctrine informelle. L’exemple de Galula nous prouve néanmoins qu’une innovation se diffuse beaucoup plus difficilement lorsqu’elle émane des hommes de terrain. / During the last decades, the increasing number of irregular wars brought the modern armies into a delicate situation. In order to overcome this new challenge, these military organizations primarily designed for interstate wars had to innovate. Many historical cases show how certain armies have launched into innovation processes because of new forms of conflict. The case of the French army in Algeria is a good example. The main goal of this paper is to understand how innovation has emerged during the conflict, and how it has diffused within the military organization. A glance at the French strategy in Algeria will allow us to highlight three main innovations: the development of the Revolutionary Warfare doctrine, the creation of “Sections Administratives Specialisées, and the David Galula approach. The analysis of these three study cases shows that innovation came mainly from militaries during the Algerian war, particularly those on top of the hierarchy. However, certain examples of bottom-up innovations do exist. In these cases, diffusion will take place via the informal doctrine. Nevertheless, the Galula example demonstrates that an innovation will diffuse with more difficulty when it comes from people on the ground.