I don't think that is correct in a great many cases:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
First, crime and political uprisings are two very different things. Just like state vs state warfare is very different than warfare between a state and its own populace. I do not pretend to offer any insights as to how to make crime go away, that is a different topic for another forum.
I don't think you can dismiss it that lightly. As Marc said:
Quote:
The problem is that there really is no strick dividing line between "crime" and "insurgency".
That says it better and more succinctly I did above:
""I believe there is a tendency to focus on governmental/governance milieus in the Intelligence arena for both the predictive and / or the 'fix' phases and thus (one) misses other indicators, generally economic and very frequently criminally related, which are far more important as catalysts. Witness the problems in southern Thailand or Afghanistan, in both cases the even the touted religion and ideology motives really are secondary to power and thievery from that power. Or the smugglers of Anbar.""
You also said:
Quote:
Look to the first component of my definition of poor governance:1. The existence of some issue, real or perceived, that is so important to some distinct segment of the populace that they are willing to fight over it. Usually some issue high on Maslow's chart, that sparks "injustice" or "outrage" or "disrespect." Coupled with
Maslow's first two needs are: Survival (Breathing, thirst, hunger, sex) and Security (Physical safety, freedom from attack). If one subscribes to that, then only e.g. hunger would drive one to fight and thus relinquish safety. ;)
Maslow is suspect on many counts but in this case a look at most insurgencies will show that the insurgents did not operate in tune with his heirarchy at all -- they went hungry (usually enduring injustice and disrespect in the process) for a cause and 'good governance was not the cause; their government or power or continued profit was the cause.
In any event, if as you say "crime and political uprisings are two very different things." then perhaps you can answer my query:
""...However, I tried to recall a single insurgency that really began due to poor governance.
Couldn't really think of one -- including the American Revolution -- but I'm sure there's one out there somewhere, probably obvious and I just missed it. Someone may be able to educate me...""
Certainly your prerogative but I suggest you widen your focus a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
raptor10
Actually I would like to disagree with the notion that there is not a clear line of demarcation between crime and insurgency. I think once we look at all the salient features that distinguish insurgency we can see that it takes on a sufficiently different character from that of gang warfare to merit completely different modes of thought.
First note that no one said a thing about gang warfare, so that should not be an issue.
Quote:
First off the United States Department of Defense (DOD) defines insurgency as "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict."
1
Yes they do -- and if you believe the US Government's definition's of things are invariably correct, you haven't spent much time in the doctrine development arena and been in 20 person meeting where the most intransigent had his way and the proverbial squeaking wheel got oiled.
That is a convenient definition because I hope you can picture the furor is we were said to be aiding the Thais halt the mostly Muslim smuggling rings in the south that do business with Malaysia -- or that we're really still in Afghanistan due to the large scale Poppy cultivation and resultant smuggling out of southern Afghanistan. Those are criminal activities-- not gangs in the US sense but still criminal.
Quote:
The two main aspects of the definition insurgency that we should consider are that it is politically motivated and to attain it's political ends it resorts to warfare...
Is it politically motivated or, are they like FARC in Colombia or the MLF or Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines all of which say they are politically motivated movements opposing a corrupt government -- when the truth is far different. I also mentioned the smugglers in Al Anbar.
Quote:
Warfare must neccessarily be thought of "as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities."
2
That's patently ridiculous. It would be nice of that were so -- then we wouldn't have to fight Al Qaeda or Taliban neither of whom is a political community in the sense that Plato probably understood or meant. Regardles,, I suspect that if you were in a major fire fight with an unorganized group of drug runners in Mexico, you'd probably think you were in a war...
Quote:
This political aspect is such a defining characteristic of an insurgency that it is a sufficient and neccessary condition of it.
We can disagree on that. Life just isn't that simple.
Quote:
The activities of these Bloods and Crips generally does not resemble the activites of insurgents in any meaningful way to warrant an analogy, it is the difference between Latrunculi and Legitimus hostis.
Your erudition is impressive. Whatever you wish to believe but allow me to remind you that you're the one who brought US Gangs into the picture, no one else has suggested that aspect at all -- though I did say the Mexican drug gangs seem to be at war with the Mexican Army. Insurgency or not? :wry:
The issue was the blending of criminal activities with an insurgency. Activities which can include kidnapping, smuggling, extortion, embezzlement -- a host of thing NOT involving Gangs but those in power or who want power. I named seven specific instance of so-called insurgencies that actually are criminal operations using politics as cover. There are many more -- including tax evasion by 13 colonies... :D
As for Adrianople; "However, once across the Danube (and in Roman territory), the dishonesty of the provincial commanders Lupicinus and Maximus led the newcomers to revolt after suffering many hardships." (emphasis added / kw) LINK. That's a Wiki Quickie, dig into the Goths in more detail and you discover a lot of criminality on both sides.
It would be nice if it was as clear cut as you say. Regrettably it is not.
Their downfalls were due to poor governance and to getting
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ron Humphrey
Seems to me I remember reading about many of the problems which led to the downfall of both the Ottoman and Persian empires had quite a bit to do with "bad Governance"
whipped in war. They had plenty of insurgencies in their long lives, so which of them were the result of that poor governance?
The issue was not bad governance, there's plenty of that about -- then and now -- or who won, the question was name an insurgency that really began due to poor governance.
Why are folks trying to focus on the wrong aspect...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
"An Insurgent, A Ranger, and a Gang member walk into a bar..."
Look at the Insurgent -- but don't forget there are really only a few Rangers on a per capita basis (this is a good thing... ;) ) and that all -- most -- criminality is not based on being a Gang member. Most criminality is in fact NOT gang related any more than most Soldiers are Rangers or everyone in a bar that doesn't agree with governmental policies is an insurgent. One could say the wealthiest Criminals have risen above gang membership to an executive level and thus seek to broaden their powers by tucking the government under their wing. :D
Gangs are not the point; the point is that criminal activity fuels the origin of many so called Insurgencies which adopt the mantra of "the government is oppressive" simply because it sells well in the western press. As it apparently does among people who should be willing to look a little deeper...
As you say:
Quote:
you must focus on why they exist and target that causation.
Couldn't agree more. I'm merely suggesting that if one gets target fixation one can focus on the wrong causation and thus apply a not totally appropriate fix.
Seven current 'insurgencies' were cited above. All are nominally opposed to 'poor governance' in the telling. All are in fact criminal operations touting insurgency as a cover.
Tricky business in general...
What we need is some bold new concept of Full-Spectrum Deterrence that helps us to balance our enagement, pro and con, across this enhanced range of players so that we can better achieve the effects we seek, without inadvertantly provoking effects we'd rather avoid.
I'll need to get on this...:)