Everything You Know About Counterinsurgency History Is (possibly) Wrong!

Hi Bob's World,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Because one segment of the populace broke off and formed a new state and engaged on state on state conflict; but with the underlying unescapable fact that both separate states once were one, and success for the north was to make them one once again.

---

I get the impression that you would consider a contiguous geographic area as a requirement as well. Actually, that issue was why I used the English Civil War as an example - both sides had state constructs although different, but neither side had a fully contiguous land area; somewhat similar to Afghanistan right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Perhaps Vietnam as well, as it too was one state broken into two, that fought as two states while also having that same inescapable fact that it was once one. In that regard, come to think of it, the South in Vietnam was much like the South in America. They fought to remain separate, while the north fought to preserve the union.

---

So would you then view a true civil war only as one in which the goal of one side is the breakup of a larger state into successor states? How would you characterize a civil war where the breakup of the larger state is not a desired end state? Or one where the geographic boundaries of a state are not recognized by one party in the fight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

Actually, that issue was why I used the English Civil War as an example - both sides had state constructs although different, but neither side had a fully contiguous land area; somewhat similar to Afghanistan right now.....

So would you then view a true civil war only as one in which the goal of one side is the breakup of a larger state into successor states?

---

...but the English Civil was nothing to do with the autonomy or the creation separate states. It was an entirely to do with the absolute authority of the king. It was a war about the type of government.

There are as many causes of civil wars as there are any other type of war or even "insurgencies." What is more, attempting to differentiate these things gets us no further forward.

What about East Pakistan?

So given Marc and WILF's points, I would say that the "English Civil War" belongs in that HUGE pile of historic misnomers.

More accurately, it was a revolutionary insurgency.
(I classify insurgencies into three broad categories: Separatist, Revolutionary, and Resistence)

I Iraq we had all three types of insurgency going on at once; in Afghanistan we have at least two; and anyplace that the US goes there will be causation (though it may not manifest into actual conflict) for a resistence insurgency. How we act can temper the effects of that causation, but only our departure can remove the causation.

Hi Wilf,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

...but the English Civil was nothing to do with the autonomy or the creation separate states. It was an entirely to do with the absolute authority of the king. It was a war about the type of government.

---

I agree, it was over the type of government which, I would argue, is what is going on in Afghanistan right now. The Taliban want one type of government, NATO wants another type and many individual people and groups want still another type. Personally, I don't think that a civil war requires the creation of separate successor states - I view that as a sub-set of civil wars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

There are as many causes of civil wars as there are any other type of war or even "insurgencies." What is more, attempting to differentiate these things gets us no further forward.

---

I agree as to the multiplicity of causes, but I'll disagree with you on whether or not that gets thing further forward ;). If the desired end state of one group is to create a successor state, then we can pretty much predict what components of their strategy will be (generally defensive militarily, although a TKO strike is a definite option; a long war with an emphasis on diplomatic recognition; etc.). The same holds true for a war about forms of governance, although the general strategy would be somewhat different and include a much greater degree of education / indoctrination (IO, PR, etc.) and much less reliance on diplomancy.

I really don't think much about Civil Wars, so I pulled this from Wikipedia:

"A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state[1], or, less commonly, between two nations created from a formerly-united nation state[2]"

Given this, I stand by my position that the Eglish example was an insurgency, as one player was the state, correct?

So if it breaks into two states, and they fight: Civil War
If two organized groups within the state fight each other: Civil War
If an organized group fights the sitting power to either change it, break away from it, or remove it as in iligitimate outsider: Insurgency.

Mr. Webster may differ, but that's how I see it.

Hi Bob's World,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

So given Marc and WILF's points, I would say that the "English Civil War" belongs in that HUGE pile of historic misnomers.

More accurately, it was a revolutionary insurgency.
(I classify insurgencies into three broad categories: Separatist, Revolutionary, and Resistence)

---

Ahh, okay, I can live with that type of differentiation. Personally, I would call your first two types "civil wars", but that's a case of using a different signifier for similar concepts - a moot point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I really don't think much about Civil Wars, so I pulled this from Wikipedia:

"A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state[1], or, less commonly, between two nations created from a formerly-united nation state[2]"

Given this, I stand by my position that the Eglish example was an insurgency, as one player was the state, correct?

---

Not quite, they were both "the state". It hinged on a question of the source of legitimacy - the divine right of the King or the actions of a rump parliament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

So if it breaks into two states, and they fight: Civil War
If two organized groups within the state fight each other: Civil War
If an organized group fights the sitting power to either change it, break away from it, or remove it as in iligitimate outsider: Insurgency.

---

Then by those definitions, the English Civil War was a civil war of the second type (two organized groups). Both sides had roughly equal legal legitimacy (or illegitimacy - take your pick).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Given this, I stand by my position that the English example was an insurgency, as one player was the state, correct?

---

How so? According to the King, the Parliament rebelled against him. According to the Parliament, he exceeded his authority and sought power he was not entitled to.

Given that, who is the insurgent?

....and what about La Violencia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William F. Owen

How so? According to the King, the Parliament rebelled against him. According to the Parliament, he exceeded his authority and sought power he was not entitled to.

Given that, who is the insurgent?

....and what about La Violencia?

---

So, if the two organized groups are within the government it is "civil" war. I can certainly buy into that.

I'm not sure what to call it when the two organized groups are outside the government and battling each other, but not the government; not very "civil"; but perhaps more than a feud...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I'm not sure what to call it when the two organized groups are outside the government and battling each other, but not the government; not very "civil"; but perhaps more than a feud...

---

You may be right, but....
Sunni Miltia v Shia Militia? Tutsi v Hutu? Pashutn v anybody? Anyone still want to call these things "insurgencies?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I'm not sure what to call it when the two organized groups are outside the government and battling each other, but not the government; not very "civil"; but perhaps more than a feud...

---

I suspect that that would depend on the form of government :wry:. I've been trying to think of examples and the ones that pop to mind are gang fights, clan feuds (e.g. Scots-English border raids) and, occasionally, outright "wars" (in the Holy Roman Empire). On the whole, I am really hesitant to use the post-Westphalian state as the basis for any general model of conflict.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marct

I suspect that that would depend on the form of government :wry:. I've been trying to think of examples and the ones that pop to mind are gang fights, clan feuds (e.g. Scots-English border raids) and, occasionally, outright "wars" (in the Holy Roman Empire). On the whole, I am really hesitant to use the post-Westphalian state as the basis for any general model of conflict.

---

Marc,

Are you suggesting that somehow the Western post-Westphalian view is not the only version of what "right" looks like? or that every state that either fails or refuses to adopt such a construct is not a "Failed state" demanding immediate fixing??? :)


I probably do use modern western words, but hey, here I am. But I don't see how this would not apply equally well to Kingdoms, or looser confederated empires like the one led by Genghis Khan, etc. A Sovereign of some nature equating to a state.

Whoah there! You do not have to be a state to conduct warfare. Why is this held to be important?
You merely have to have a collective policy that you wish to advocate by violence. That's it.

Hi Bob,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

Are you suggesting that somehow the Western post-Westphalian view is not the only version of what "right" looks like? or that every state that either fails or refuses to adopt such a construct is not a "Failed state" demanding immediate fixing??? :)

---

Yup :D!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob's World

I probably do use modern western words, but hey, here I am. But I don't see how this would not apply equally well to Kingdoms, or looser confederated empires like the one led by Genghis Khan, etc. A Sovereign of some nature equating to a state.

---

I suspect it would apply to many kingdoms and some confederacy "empires" (although I suspect that would only be true if they had a history of a "Royal [Noble] Tribe"). I don't think it would really apply to the Iroquois Confederacy, merchantile "empires" such as Venice, most pastoralist groups, or many other social forms we've had in our history.

Even in situations where the "sovereign" is incarnate, we have some problems with it (e.g. Machiavelli's distinction between the first amongst equals of the west and the Eastern despot). Things, to my mind, get trickier still when we bare dealing with discarnate sovereigns such as a God or Goddess (e.g. the Sumerian city states), a Constitution, etc. In that case, the "sovereign" can't "speak" for "themselves, but rely upon a group of people who constantly interpret the "will" of the "sovereign" - often in mutually contradictory ways ;).

Honestly, I don't know what terminology would work best for our current situations :wry:. I'm leery of using the post-Westphalian terminology because it assumes too many things that, IMO, just aren't present.

(wrong thread/wrong post)