To face down Networked Insurgency, any counterinsurgency initiative must apply the same tools as used by Insurgency, with an ethical, empathic core of messaging, avoiding moral and binary traps.

Targeting any and all signal mechanisms capable of shaping collective perception.

To face down Networked Insurgency, any counterinsurgency approach must accept the cost of sidestepping the use cases and damage done by Insurgency chaotic actors.

This in order to rigidly establish collective perception of identifiable shared master enemies.

To face down Networked Insurgency, any counterinsurgency framework must induce a big picture perspective, reinforcing socio-cultural traits of cohesion.

In spite of fault lines pressured by the insurgency.

When push comes to shove, Networked Insurgency functions as an application of cultural engineering more so than as an operational application of tools and tactics.

This is the reason why any segmented, bottom up, counterinsurgency application is bound to fail.

Networked Insurgency relies on continuous input of behavioural data on target profiles, for example population, but also organisational behaviour, in order to optimise core competencies (linguistics, theatre craft, influence).

Networked Insurgency relies on culturally and socially induced influence on signal mechanisms.
Social circles. Policy Institutes. PR. Lobby. Media. In that order.
This is the reason message deconfliction at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of is so critical.

A core dilemma of counterinsurgency facing networked insurgency is not how to identify and neutralize insurgents, who generally hide amongst population, many in plain sight.
But how to identify and present architects of insurgency as root causes, and identifiable threats.

Introductory Chapter freely available here: http://www.johanfarkas.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Post-Truth-Fake-News-and-Democracy-Chapter-1.pdf