The definitions should be clear...
In my opinion the difference between GUERRILLA and INSURGENCY is very easy, when you just look at the words and their meaning:
GUERRILLA (in Spanish) means literally SMALL WAR, so it is purely military business and describes the hit-and-run tactics of small groups of fighters in comparison to the traditional warfare, where you have big armies confronting each other on an open battlefield.
INSURGENCY simply means that somebody tries to topple a ruling authority/government by any means possible. There is no limitation to the military fight (which is just a part of the whole insurgency). Special forms of insurgency would be a revolution or a coup.
The military today (a few at least) accept counter-insurgency being more than just military business, however the military gets all the money and still runs the show (Iraq: MNF-I; Afghanistan: ISAF) while continuing to neglect the more important parts (economic, social and political parts of counterinsurgency) of counter-insurgency. That's simply because military generals usually don't want to share authority and/or command.
BTW I found the Title of the older interim Field Manual "Counterinsurgency Operations" more appropriate than the new FM3-24 "Counterinsurgency" because the title suggests that the military part is the whole business.
BRUZ
why it may make a difference...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
...why would a major US withdrawal make a difference in those conflict areas?
I just came across this to stress my point:
It's taken from the narrative by Shelby Foote on the US Civil War (Volume I, Page 65):
When a poor Virginian Private was taken prisoner by some Unionist soldiers he was asked, why he was fighting, as he obviously was not rich, owned no cotton farm, had no slaves and had really no need for upholding slavery.
He simply replied: "I am fighting, because you are down here."
So maybe if one would ask some jihadists in the Middle East today why they are fighting against the US troops there, they may simply reply: "We are fighting, because you are over here."
bruz
Shift from Firepower to Brainpower
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Steve Blair
But with this wonderful analogy you fail to consider ...
Obviously anybody who doesn't follow this forum's Group-Think opinions fails miserably...
Taken from: "Heads We Win. The Cognitive Side of Counterinsurgency (COIN)" by David C. Gompert. RAND COIN Study Paper 1:
The jihad is able to perpetuate itself by relying on perceived Western injustice and aggression to turn disgruntled Muslims into radical Islamists and then using the story of the West’s assault on Islam to recruit radicalized individuals to violence and martyrdom. Understanding this cognitive process is the first step toward breaking it. Preventing Muslims from being radicalized, preventing radicals from choosing violence, and protecting society from violent radicals are different problems requiring different cognitive strategies.
Keeping Muslims from becoming radicals or radicals from becoming terrorists cannot be achieved through a U.S.-led propaganda assault on Islamic fundamentalism any more than it can by reliance on force.
[...] In COIN, force might weaken an insurgency, strengthen it, or both.
[...] the governing authority and its COIN can fail if the loss of the legitimacy of force puts it on the same level as the insurgents.
-End of quote-
I still ask the question about the legitimacy (not for the US soldier; I am aware that the president ordered it after cheating the congress on WMD in Iraq) of the whole OIF campaign in the perception of the Iraqi people
bruz
Of insults, drive bys and incipient flames...
Hi Bruz,
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BRUZ_LEE
I post this here for everybody to read and make up his own opinion after I received 2 Personal Messages from the "moderators" here where I am accused of being "insulting to others".
Given the reactions some of your posts have created, whether you intended them or not, you should realize that they may be seen as insulting by some members. Since the reactions are observable, this is not an accusation of intent but, rather, a notification of effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BRUZ_LEE
The term "moderator" is referring to the Latin term "moderatus". This is definitely the contrary to what Mr. "Steve Blair" is.
He is the one who does the personal insults and the drive-bys and he is in my opinion a shame for this otherwise good site.
From Merriam-Webster online
Quote:
1 : one who arbitrates : MEDIATOR
2 : one who presides over an assembly, meeting, or discussion: as a : the presiding officer of a Presbyterian governing body b : the nonpartisan presiding officer of a town meeting c : the chairman of a discussion group
Please note that the terms "arbitrate" and "preside" appear in these definitions. A large part of the role of a moderator is to teach and train participants in an ongoing discussion by setting the basic parameters of that discussion and the generally acceptable forms in which that discussion takes place. At the SWC, we call this the boards ROE.
Given the relative length on time on this board and the number of posts (BL: January 2007, 26 posts; Steve Blair: October 2005, 1232 posts) I will leave it, as you say, "for everybody to read and make up his own opinion" on who has a better grasp of the dynamics of this board.
Marc