I didn't know Insurgency was a crime...
Terrorism, OTOH is (nowadays) and this seems pretty clear to me; LINK.
The two are not synonymous in my mind and do not appear to be to Merriam Webster; LINK, LINK.
Nor can I see how either Union organizer would get that insurgent label. Discounting my opinion, it seems the only way to get the determination you want is have someone pass a law and Congress's record in that sphere isn't too hot, so I think that's case of 'be careful what you wish for.'
I'm never sure what National debate means. Do we all argue a position on the web? Write letters to the Editor? Not being snide or snarky, honest -- I truly do not understand what's meant by the phrase in a nation this large, this diverse and this contentious which has a representative government. How is this national debate conducted and by whom?
Guerillas speak spanish, all others are insurgents
according to some. :D
According to others, the difference is more than semantic as a guerilla can operate with or against a government or an occupier (The French Resistance in WW II) -- some call them irregular forces to introduce more semanticism or romanticism -- whereas an insurgent operates only against the government in the nation of interest (The OAS in France and Algeria during the Algerian Insurrection) generally with the object of regime change. Were that not so, he or she would not be insurging. ;)
Insurgents and guerillas can use terrorism as a tactic in which case they become insurgents and guerillas who use terrorism as a tactic and may logically be called terrorists by some though they still remain insurgents and guerillas for all practical and (I am not a Lawyer) I suspect legal purposes. :(
Terrorists, OTOH use terror (i.e the threat of physical harm or the actual performance of acts that cause such harm) to coerce a group or nation (can be either) to do or not do certain things. Terrorists may or may not be insurgents or guerillas. If they are NOT sanctioned by a nation state, they are also likely to be called criminals as well. Unless Reuter's is reporting it -- then they become freedom fighters or something.
Agreed. The problem is the media are generally clueless.
They excel at muddying the water; not intentionally just through ignorance in too many cases.
Re: your points; I'd add to 'em a bit:
1. What is their motivation and can we counter it, if so how?
2. Where is their support and can we institute a divorce?
3. How are they supplied and can we interdict?
4. How do they recruit and what alternatives can we offer?
...and submit that, generally, two of the four will be accomplished with only slight difficulty and the other two will be elusive.
The thing that'll keep us alert is that which two will be accomplished will vary from war to war and likely will vary within a given war over time. If we can crack the two easy items (whichever they may be) and get a good handle on any third item -- then the bad guys (catch all term, NY Times approved) will be operating at only about 25% capacity and are more likely to let us get to a position where a satisfactory outcome can be obtained -- there is no victory in a counterinsurgency in the normal sense.
One can add more items or combine for a smaller number but the process remains the same; there will be no 100% solution (and there need not be); identify the critical factors for the particular war, further identify the ones that you can most easily counter and work to get the preponderance going your way. All while getting shot at ...
Timurlane had it easy... :D
Confusion to your enemies
Ken , I like the additions, maybe we armchair generals can get a job fixing the world after all.
One can add more items or combine for a smaller number but the process remains the same; there will be no 100% solution (and there need not be); identify the critical factors for the particular war, further identify the ones that you can most easily counter and work to get the preponderance going your way. All while getting shot at ...
(sorry not quite figured the quote system yet)
Is this not a fault of the military for not setting the expectation? Of course the politicians manage the message, but don't we need a few brave members of the brass to dissent - and show that wars are not easy and that a terrorist war is a long haul project - not in and out on a Saturday night?
Well, at least your calling me "nice people"...
Actually, a lot of the definitional problem comes out of basic worldviews. Let me toss out some of my own (very rough) definitions so Sam can pull them apart ;).
Terrorist: One who practices the tactic of "terrorism"; a tactic designed to induce fear and terror in a population and, by doing so, achieve their aims.
Guerrilla warfare: a "Grand Tactic/Strategy" that relies on a "strike and fade" or "raiding" mode of combat.
Insurgent: one who rebels against the "legal" government which claims sovereignty over them.
Criminal: one who breaks the laws of the "legal" government which claims sovereignty over them.
Legal Government: a social group that has managed to impose control over a larger group and to regularize and routinize that control in such a manner that other such entities recognize it as the "legal government" of the larger group.
In this set of definitions, there is overlap, but not too much.
Marc