Major A.H. Amin argues that the term "non-state actor" is a myth used to obscure the true sponsors of insurgent and terrorist groups. In reality, almost all major insurgent or terrorist groups that have strategic significance are proxies supported and directed by states. The few minor groups that are truly independent have little strategic or tactical impact. States rely on non-state proxies to wage wars after 1945 in place of direct conventional warfare due to nuclear weapons. However, powerful states like the US will claim attacks are by non-state actors to avoid confronting other nuclear states that sponsor proxies. The term is also misused to obscure the relationship between Pakistan and anti-India militant groups.

1. Myth of non state actors
Major A.H Amin (Retired)
 Published on Published on January 3, 2016
 Edit article
 View stats
Agha A
Investment Advisor at Maku Investments
496 articles
 52
 Like3
 Com m ent 1

Myth of non state actors
Agha H Amin
During my service in the army and after seeing closely five civil wars
and present Afghan war since 1979 I realised that the very term non state
actor is a myth .
On the geopolitical and strategic level , THERE ARE NO NON STATE
ACTORS .

2. This means that all so called non state actors that matter , are proxies of
some state and thus it is INCORRECT to define them as NON STATE
ACTORS .
The vast majority of all so called INSURGENTS or TERRORISTS
belongs to this group.
The real non state actors who act independently are of no strategic value
and even limited tactical consequences are a puny 5 or 10 % of all
insurgents.
Now why this reliance by states on non state actors ?
The simple reason at the strategic level is that conventional war ended in
1945 thanks to Nuclear weapons , but since war is an indispensable tool
of strategy and policy , non state actors became the major way to wage
war after 1945.
Vietnam War , and many so called wars of national liberation and the
Soviet Afghan War were thus the wars of the rich , against the poor or
rich and big states versus similar states .
Non state actor is also a highly misused term in US politics.
Where it is politically inexpedient by the USG to confront a state
because it can retaliate or possesses nuclear weapons , the USG claims
that it is attacking non state actors .

3. USA, ISI, AL QAEDA and TALIBAN Anatomy of Grand US Strategic
Failure
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320353132_USA_ISI_AL_QA
EDA_and_TALIBAN_Anatomy_of_Grand_US_Strategic_Failure
The classic case of denial was recent US Afghan war where NINETY
EIGHT PERCENT US TROOPS were killed by non state proxies of
Pakistani state but USG all along FALSELY CLAIMED that its troops
were being killed by non state actors . Because USG did not want to
attack PAKISTAN a declared Nuclear state. A fiction was invented that
USG was attacking non state actors called Afghan Taliban or Al Qaeda
which exists only in New York Times or Washington Posts or Drone
Industries Board rooms and editorial chambers !
http://csi-ops.blogspot.com/2015/12/new-york-times-nonsense-on-al-
qaeda.html
In case of Pakistan India relations again non State actor is a political
adultery term extensively misused . Like in Pathankot and Gurdaspur
attacks Indian Government claimed that it was under attack by non state
actors and Pakistani state or some of its organs who manipulated this
attack expressed extreme sympathy and solidarity with Indian
government over the unfortunate attacks.
It is no coincidence when some clowns attack an Indian base
immediately after a highly publicised peace process meeting between
Pakistan and Indias prime ministers .But Indians have no choice but to
blaeme non state actors.Simply because India cannot confront nuclear

4. armed Pakistan whose nuclear doctrine envisages destruction of 7 Indian
largest cities as a first nuclear strike strategy without even having
declared war.
USA has to satisfy its public that its sons and daughters are killed by non
state actors !
Ironically USA facilitated Pakistani acquisition of Nuclear weapons in
1983-84 so that USSR ally India may not overrun Pakistan in a war and
thus destroy USAs Afghan war chattel base !
In Syrian war 95 % so called non state actors fighting a so called war of
liberation were US proxies in lead or Saudi ,Turkish,Qatari ,
Israeli,NATO proxies.
The major strategic change took place when Russia called the bluff into
question and intervened with air power and paralysed all US/NATO
electronic war operations that were aiding Syrian Insurgents.
The real danger that we may face in next few decades is that so called
non state actors would :--
1. Spin out of control and actually become real non state actors.
2. Non state actors are employed by non state business corporations
as tools of business and policy.
3. Non state actors actually acquire weapons of mass destruction .
4. As states become weak and the very concept of nationalism is
abandoned the world assumes a more chaotic shape.