FMFM 21 - Operations Against Guerrilla Units, Aug 1962 (reprint June 1965)
From the SWJ Aladdin's Cave of Field Manuals:
Quote:
102. INSURGENCY AND COUNTERINSURGENCY
a. Insurgency Defined. - - A condition resulting from a revolt or insurrection against a constituted government which falls short of civil war. In the current context, insurgency is primarily communist inspired, supported or exploited.
b. Counterinsurgency Defined. - - Those military, paramilitary, political, economic, psychological and civic actions taken by a government to defeat subversive insurgency.
...---...
106. EVOLUTION OF FORCES
Resistance stems from the dissatisfaction of some part of the population. The dissatisfaction may be real, imagined or incited and is usually centered around a desire for - -
(1) Political change.
(2) Relief from actual or alleged oppression.
(3) Elimination of foreign occupation or exploitation.
(4) Economic and social improvement.
(5) Religious expression.
Resistance movements may form locally or be inspired by “sponsoring powers.” The evolution of the guerrilla force usually follows a sequence of events that form a pattern:
(1) The existence of a dissident group.
(2) The emergence of groups which are willing to bear arms.
(3) The appearance of strong, determined leaders to further organize and orient these groups. As members of underground organizations are identified and resistance grows, guerrilla bands form in secure areas to become the military arm of the guerrilla force.
(4) Initial successes are exploited to convince elements of the population to support an effective guerrilla organization.
(5) Seeking and accepting support from external sources.
(6) The employment of equipment and personnel furnished by external sources
(7) The integration of the guerrilla forces into a regular military organization.
Like FM 31-22 from 1963, the USMC FMFM 21 seems to this reader to be a lot more straightforward than much of the current literature. Given that the Cold War also featured a massive ideological struggle, these old field manuals paradoxically seem to have much less of an underlying ideological bias, and are impressive for their measured sobriety. One of the first things to stand out between the USMC and the Army manuals, however, is FMFM 21's unapologetic use of the concept of evolution to describe the change of guerrilla units through time. One imagines that this well befits an organisation that emerges from the sea to fight on the land (and from the air).
http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/fmfm21.pdf
We're in the Army now ...
the French Army, that is - and its TdM (Troupes de Marine) branch, just to keep it in the family. :D
Bonsoir Legrange,
You keep me active finding where you get some of your ideas. So, here we look at "insurrection" (Fr) = "insurrection" (Eng). But is that really an accurate translation of our (US) thought. Ne pas !
No doubt, current French doctrine is filled with "insurrection" - both the French originals and in English translations and paraphrases. E.g.:
Quote:
FT-01 Gagner la bataille, Conduire à la paix, les forces terrestres dans les conflits aujourd’hui et demain; CENTRE DE DOCTRINE D’EMPLOI DES FORCES, PARIS, JANVIER 2007 (pp.16-18):
....
133 - Des conflits symétriques aux conflits asymétriques
....
Les modèles dissymétiques et, plus encore, asymétriques sont désormais les conflits de référence pour notre armée. Or, les guerres asymétriques trouvant leur pleine expression dans
l’insurrection, la guérilla, le terrorisme ou la manipulation des populations, certaines capacités indispensables dans la conduite des guerres symétriques ou dissymétriques s’avèrent partiellement inadaptées à l’asymétrie des conflits.
and translated.
Quote:
FT-01 (ENG) Winning the Battle, Building Peace; Land Forces in Present and Future Conflicts; CENTRE DE DOCTRINE D’EMPLOI DES FORCES, PARIS, JANVIER 2007 (pp.16-18)
...
1.3.3 – From Symmetrical to Asymmetrical Conflicts
...
Dissymmetrical and, even more so, asymmetrical conflicts have become the points of reference for the French Army. Since asymmetrical warfare finds its full expression in
insurrections, guerrilla warfare, terrorism and the manipulation of populations, certain capabilities which are indispensable for the conduct of symmetric or dissymmetrical warfare have proven to be illadapted in part to asymmetrical conflicts.
One more example in French (which uses both "insurrection" & "mouvement révolutionnaire"):
Quote:
DOCTRINE D’EMPLOI DES FORCES TERRESTRES EN STABILISATION; CENTRE DE DOCTRINE D’EMPLOI DES FORCES, PARIS, 2006 (p.15):
... intervention dans un conflit interne où une armée n’arrive pas à maîtriser
une insurrection / un mouvement révolutionnaire, etc.), la FOT (Force Opérationnelle Terrestre) peut se trouver exposée à divers niveaux de menace classique ...
and another in English:
Quote:
DOCTRINE - general military review; Lessons learned: Principles of Pacification and Organization; MAY 2007, DOCTRINE # 12:
Doctrine: What type of enemy can be met in these areas and how is it organized?
On the Afghan theater of operations as well as on many mountainous theaters where more or less known asymmetric operations are taking place [3], the mountains constitute sanctuaries where
insurrection movements get equipped, train, are refurbished and that they use for relocating their fighters and to organize their logistical flows.
and finally this monograph:
Quote:
LE RÔLE DES MILITAIRES DANS LA RECONSTRUCTION D’ÉTATS APRÈS LES CONFLITS, Yann BRAEM, Alexandra de HOOP SCHEFFER, Christian OLSSON, Raphaël POUYÉ, 2007; Ce document constitue le rapport final de l’étude commanditée au Center for Peace du CERI/Sciences Po par le C2SD. CCEP 2006 SOC-138, Conv DEF/C2SD/2006 n°90.
which uses "insurrection" just short of 100 times.
Now all of this French "insurrectionism" seemed a bit suspicious to this partial product of some ancien TdM genes. Where was the term "insurgency" ?
Actually, the French Army translated it out of existence and made it into "insurrection" ! Thus, from the DOCTRINE - general military review article above (p.7):
Quote:
The Marines and the US Army have just issued a new “Joint Doctrine” pertaining to counterinsurrection. It is based upon the Afghani and Iraqi experiences. ...
Whoa, Cheval ... Not (in English) a Joint Doctrine re: "counterinsurrection", but one re: "counter-insurgency".
That French translation of "counter-insurgency" into "counterinsurrection" also shows up clearly in the 2007 LE RÔLE DES MILITAIRES monograph above (p. 92):
Quote:
Dès le début des années 1970 cette stratégie visant à lutter contre le PIRA fut mise en oeuvre par le brigadier Frank Kitson, l’un des principaux hérauts britanniques de la contre-insurrection coloniale aux côtés de Thompson, Clutterbuck et Tugwell [129].
[129] WILLIAMS (P), From Counter Insurgency to Internal Security: Northern Ireland 1969-1992, Small Wars and Insurgencies, Vol.6, n.6, printemps 1995; Voir également: KITSON (Frank), Low Intensity Operations: subversion, insurgency and peacekeeping, London, Faber and Faber, 1971.
So, for some reason, French doctrine prefers "insurrection" to "insurgency"; despite such perfectly good French (per my battered Larousse) as insurgé = insurgent, and insurger = to revolt, to rebel, to rise.
And, perhaps, the devious TdM (;)) have decided that, as you say:
Quote:
By using the name insurrection, you assume that the government is always right.
But, that shift in meaning is not demonstrated in the Anglophone world; nor at Geneva at the ICRC - just consider APs I and II, as well as the ICRC studies of Direct Participation in Hostilities and of Customary International Humanitarian Law, which are scarcely slanted in favor of incumbant governments.
Colonialement, tu ancien Marsouin :)
Mike