True, very true; and sometimes it is a confusing mix
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
I'd certainly agree that anyone involved in a particular insurgency needs to develop a sophisticated understanding of that particular insurgency, but I see considerable danger in making generic conclusions about "insurgency" and imposing them on any given situation.
Certainly some insurgencies are fought out of desire for liberty... but does that mean that all insurgency, everywhere, represents a struggle for liberty? Don't people sometimes fight over power, profit, position, advantage?
Obviously guys like George Washington are rare cats, who when presented with the opportunity to take absolute power unto them self, instead remain absolutely resolute to the principles of the movement itself.
WILF rolls out Sierra Leone as a recent example of where military force defeated the insurgency. I must admit, I have not studied this insurgency much, but the small amount I have read it appeared to be much more a small band without significant popular support fighting for the power and profit associated with control of the Diamond industry. That is more like a Western American "range war" than an insurgency; and such efforts have no "roots" so to speak, so can be eradicated and done with.
The key remains the populace and making a fair and accurate assessment of where their loyalties lie. Obviously every populace is a complex mosaic, and few assessors, be they insurgent, colonial, or national government will be unbiased and probably over value their own stakes accordingly.
If a movement has no root in populace desire to get rid of existing governance (rather than promote some new governance - that is us focusing on what is being promoted rather than what is being resisted) it probably isn't really an insurgency.
2 Attachment(s)
Starting at the Beginnings
Again a note of thanks to Slap for the 1962 book "Insurgency and Counterinsurgency: An Anthology" (in 9 pdf parts, linked in my post here), which takes us back to the Genesis of the present controversy - Counterinsurgency and its Discontents.
The following jpg image is from the 1962 Insurgency and Counterinsurgency An Anthology 01.pdf (the file on my drive, originally at the link 2171701001a.pdf):
Attachment 1162
The jpg quote above (the "new" inter-departmental definitions) are found in and explained in the link above as the 4 page Introduction (pdf pp. 7-10) written by Richard M. Leighton, Chairman of the ICAF Counterinsurgency Committee. I've attached a 2-page pdf (1962 Insurgency and Counterinsurgency An Anthology 01, 7-8.pdf), which has the key explanatory caveats - the forgetting of which may be some of today's problem.
The 1962 introduction of the "new" (according to the author) term "counter-insurgency" is self-explanatory. So also, the revised definition of "insurgency" and the definition of the new term "counter-insurgency", for US inter-departmental use.
-----------------------------
Turning now to some pedantic points.
As to the point that "insurgency" has centuries old validity in international law, consider Fr. insurger, "to revolt, to rebel, to rise" (Larousse); the source of our English "insurgent" and "insurgency", as well as our English "insurrection" (Oxford; both go back to Lat. insurgere, "to rise up"). The Lat. insurgere had two slightly different meanings (Hinds-Hayden): "to increase in power" as in Caesar paulatim insurgere, Tacitus; and "to rise up against" as in insurgere suis regnis, Ovid).
IMO: insurgency, insurrection, revolution, rebellion and [up]rising are fundamentally cognate, although variations in meaning may be asserted by their variant users. The variations in meaning are based on the users' variant ideas - the magic, if any, lies in the supporting content in context, not in the buzzword used or misused.
Truth in Lending: The terms "insurgency, insurrection, revolution, rebellion and [up]rising" do paint somewhat different mind pictures for me - no doubt based on how others have used those words in what I've read and how I've perceived their apparent meanings.
------------------------------------
If you are serious about making an argument about how the terms "insurgency" and "counter-insurgency" developed meanings in 1962 - and then further morphed over the last 48 years, the entire 1962 book "Insurgency and Counterinsurgency: An Anthology" is a must read.
To it, I'd add a number of manuals from 1951-1963 - which, if you are interested, are probably all still online (as .pdfs) and can be found by a bit of Googling).
These old (I'd say "vintage") manuals have much to commend themselves, as successors to and expanders of the 1940 USMC Small Wars Manual.
1951 FM 31-21 Organization and Conduct of Guerrilla Warfare.pdf
1955 FM 31-20 US Army Special Forces Group.pdf
1958 FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations.pdf
1961 FM 31-15 Operations against Irregular Forces.pdf
1961 FM 31-21 Guerrilla Warfare and Special Forces Operations.pdf
1962 (rev 1964-65) FMFM 8-2 USMC Operations Against Guerrilla Units.pdf
1963 FM 31-16 Counterguerrilla Operations.pdf
1963 FM 31-22 US Army Counterinsurgency Forces.pdf
Note that Counterinsurgency (as a title) enters the manuals in 1963.
-------------------------------------------------
Another part of this topic is classification of "insurgencies". Back in 1993, our Steve Metz suggested that we would see two basic types, presented in the Summary of his short (29-page) article, The Future of Insurgency (emphasis added by JMM):
Quote:
Insurgency will persist even after the end of the cold war. But as insurgent strategists recognize the bankruptcy of old techniques, especially protracted, rural "people's war," they will innovate. It is vital for those interested in preventing or controlling insurgency to think creatively, speculate on the new forms that will emerge, and craft new frames of reference to serve as the foundation for strategy and doctrine.
The key to post-cold war insurgency is its psychological component. The greatest shortcoming of Third World states (including most of the former Soviet bloc) is their inability to meet the psychological needs of their populations, especially a sense of meaning during the stressful periods of rapid change associated with development. This shortcoming will generate frustration and discontent which can be used by insurgent strategists.
Two forms of insurgency are likely to dominate the post-cold war world. Spiritual insurgency is the descendant of the cold war-era revolutionary insurgency. It will be driven by the problems of modernization, the search for meaning, and the pursuit of justice. The other form will be commercial insurgency. This will be driven less by the desire for justice than wealth. Its psychological foundation is a warped translation of Western popular culture which equates wealth, personal meaning, and power.
The dominance of one of these two forms will vary from region to region. Latin America is likely to suffer more from continued and expanded commercial insurgency than from spiritual. Sub-Saharan Africa will be particularly prone to insurgency. Initially the spiritual form will be pervasive, with the potential for commercial insurgency to develop later. The likelihood of spiritual insurgency is also high in the Middle East (including Arab North Africa). The Asia/Pacific region and the former Soviet bloc will probably experience both spiritual and commercial insurgency.
IMO: This is a remarkable 4-paragraph analysis from 17 years ago, whose basic construct seems still valid to this armchair observer.
Steve "Roadkill" Metz may now have a different take on his 1993 BLUF. RSVP.
Regards
Mike
The Suspects Have Been Arrested-Law And Order The Final Episode
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
I was talking about the beginning of the terms ("insurgency" and "counter-insurgency") which some find offensive, used too much as buzzwords, etc.
Regards
Mike
jmm99, Agree!!! when I found that document I new I had caught my man. I felt like I just solved one of the greatest crimes in history. I am a pretty good Cop if do say so myself:D So my job is done.... and now it is time for the Prosecution and Defense to take over. A note on the crime scene...it did not take place at any of the usual war colleges but the Industrial War College...the birthplace of Globalization;)