From the "War is war" thread
Quote:
from BW
.... from a piece I am working on on "Perspectives on Insurgency":
Traditional Perspective: “Insurgency and counterinsurgency (COIN) are complex subsets of warfare.”
Updated: Insurgency is an illegal political challenge to a governing body that may be either violent or non-violent in terms of tactics employed and campaign design. COIN is the action of that governing body working to prevent or resolve the civil emergency.
Addressing those concepts here rather than there seems more appropriate.
As to the "Traditional Perspective", I'd suggest that it could be presented as:
“Insurgency and counterinsurgency (COIN) are complex subsets of politfare and/or warfare.”
"Politfare" being the "conduct of" or "journey into" political action (see etymology of "fare"). Note this is not a rigorous definition, but merely a classification, such as "Homo S and Homo N are complex subsets of Hominidae."
The "and/or" is inserted to recognize that multiple variants can occur even when only two parties are involved: each party could use political action only, military action only, or a mix of both.
--------------------------------
As to the updated definition:
Quote:
Updated: Insurgency is an illegal political challenge to a governing body that may be either violent or non-violent in terms of tactics employed and campaign design. COIN is the action of that governing body working to prevent or resolve the civil emergency.
If the political challenge is non-violent, why is it "illegal" and who makes it so ?
Similar thought, if the political challenge is non-violent, why should it be or develop into a "civil emergency" (whatever that is) ?
That definition might apply in an authoritarian country with a very rigid one-party line (all deviations from which, violent and non-violent, are "illegal" and all deviants are "insurgents" - "we shoot counter-revolutionaries.") and with an enhanced state security service which always operates in emergency mode.
------------------------
In Geneva-speak re: armed conflicts, we have to have at least two opposing "Powers" to the armed conflict; and, by analogy, at least two opposing "Powers" to political conflicts.
While Geneva-speak talks of "Powers", it does not really define the term - we know it when we see it. ;)
Regards
Mike
Is this completely true ?
Quote:
from BW
I left out the critical word of "internal" as well. If the challenger is from outside it is UW.
We have an External Power which supports one of two Internal Powers (say "Power B"). To the External Power, it is waging UW vs Power A (and vice versa). However, Power A still could regard Power B as an "insurgent" and as a Power in a non-international armed conflict. Sorta Vietnam, ain't it ?
The UW conflict could be an international armed conflict if both the External Power and Power A are states. Your example of AQ (IMO: agree that AQ as a TVNSA wages UW, not a "global insurgency", using inter alia domestic insurgencies as tools) vice a state Power would be a non-international armed conflict, since AQ is not a nation-state and has neither accepted nor applied the 1949 GCs (as required by Common Article 2).
My other questions and comments still apply from the post above.
Regards
Mike
Read Bob's definitions again
Steve, Bob's definitions are carefully crafted in the sense that they are not uniquely Western. Indeed, each of them relies on local interpretation and perception.
As an example that would fall within Bob's definition of legitimacy let me offer one indicator (variable) from Manwaring's original SSI study - "lack of perceived corruption." Corruption is commonly understood as the missuse of public position for personal gain and exists in all cultures. What is unique in each culture is their definition of missuse. So many things that a Westerner would see as corruption are perfectly acceptable in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, or Panama. I would also note that what is perceived as corrupt behavior also changes over time so something that was perfectly acceptable 20 years ago no longer is today. Still, there is a core to the notion of corruption that transcends culture. I believe that Bob has caught this kind of core in his definitions.
Cheers
JohnT