Talk:Counterinsurgency

message: 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)
thread_title: Neutrality

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Klaus Barbie? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is there an anti-western bias here? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 . 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)
thread_title: Edits removed during redirection?

message: 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)
thread_title: Israel

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Dispute in the introduction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Three disputed paragraphs

message: 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)
thread_title:  Union troops 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Fairness 

message: :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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
thread_title: China

message: 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)
thread_title: List of Conflicts

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Anti-partisan]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Royal United Services Institute 

message: 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)
thread_title: United States experience

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What is to "take away civilians"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggested move/rename to Counterinsurgency, 2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Government violence SA's? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why no mention of [[Operation Lentil]]? 

message: That's obvious enough. Anyone want to help out? Mnnlaxer (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  There should be a section on COIN criticism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1915 "insurgency" 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414001721/https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2005/acsc/3569%20-%20Sagraves.pdf to https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2005/acsc/3569%20-%20Sagraves.pdf
*Added archive https://archive.is/20110510015255/http://www.kepi.cncplusplus.com/Ivory_Coast/Ivory_Coast.htm to http://www.kepi.cncplusplus.com/Ivory_Coast/Ivory_Coast.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100927074654/http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2007/10/counterinsurgency-reading-list.html to http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2007/10/counterinsurgency-reading-list.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100211083706/http://mass-multi-media.com/CRV to http://mass-multi-media.com/CRV/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126102425/http://www.jpfo.org/stroop.htm to http://www.jpfo.org/stroop.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070106044249/http://www.jihadmonitor.org/category/military-forces-and-counterterrorism/ to http://www.jihadmonitor.org/category/military-forces-and-counterterrorism/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: 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 
This edit was reverted by  (along with 3 other edits, which have since been restored after discussion), with the edit summary .  
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)
thread_title:  BRD on paragraphs under B. H. Liddell Hart that do not mention him 

message: :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)
replies: text: Counter-insurgency →  – more common spelling: NGRAMS, Google Scholar: 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 (t · c) buidhe 06:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 May 2021 

message: 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 presentAs 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" 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Counterinsurgency or counterinsurgency doctrine?