Greater that 50 % only matters in elections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SJPONeill
Bob,
The CT were how the Commonwealth forces in Malaya referred to the insurgents as part of their IO campaign to deny them legitimacy. They may have been supported by the ethnic Chinese community and that is debatable but even if they were, that Chinese community was only a small proportion of the actual population of Malaya so you can not claim that the CT/MNLA had broad popular support.
The Taliban in AFG are insurgents - so....? We're discussing their level of popular support and I'd argue that it isn't that high in AFG either - if it were, then that campaign would probably be all done and dusted in their favour by now.
AQ in Iraq - ditto.
Republicans in Northern Ireland: Insurgents. "
...A revolutionary nationalist movement to remove the illegitimate (in the eyes of the populace...) British government..." Which portion of the populace? Unless you're going back to the 1920s, I think you'll find that the majority of the populace there didn't actually hold that belief.
Militia in Timor Leste: "
...Not super familiar, if they were locals they were insurgents..." Once again, that's irrelevant - the question is how much popular support did they have and the answer is not much. Some good books on this campaigns now and David Kilcullen also covers his part in it as a company commander in Accidental Guerrilla...
Mau Mau in Kenya: "
...Insurgents...." So....? Their level of popular support was low...
Under your FID model, most of WW2 consisted of a series of FID campaigns. The
2010 version of JP 3.22 FID defines it as:
That's fine up to the point where the intervention is supporting the host nation's programmes but once intervention operations cross beyond that point into the situations of Vietnam, Iraq and AFG, or Malaya, Indochine and Algerie where the line between host nation and intervening nation are blurred, then you are into something that is other than, and bigger than, FID....
Simon
A lot of people get fixated on percentages, as if the segment of the populace experiencing conditions of insurgency and therefore generally supportive of the insurgent cause is less than a majority it doesn't matter.
Fact is that these are populaces that were denied legal, effective means to affect change of government in every case listed; so they were forced to take illegal approaches to advance their concerns. Is 5% of the populace enough? 10%? Depends by case, but arguing percentages is the type of moot rationalization that the Counterinsurgent often wallows in. Just as they wallow in "facts" in regards to the insurgents stated rationale for mounting an illegal opposition. Small percentages of the total populace, with perhaps broader support within some distinct segment is enough. Facts as assessed by others are moot as it is all about how this segment of the populace feels about their governance. I think more often than not, what is sufficient causation for such a segment of populace is considered irrational by the government (usually to their ultimate chagrin).
That is why COIN really just very very rarely would ever fall into a category where one would approach it with best effect through warfare. Good governments identify and address such concerns as a matter of course, or have established trusted and certain processes for the populace to at least vent legally, whether they get their way or not. When such outlets (hope) are denied, small things become what we call here "small wars." Most are tragically avoidable by governments simply being less arrogant and self-serving and more wiling to represent and answer to the will of the populace they are supposed to serve.
legal pursuit to do what?
Quote:
Fact is that these are populaces that were denied legal, effective means to affect change of government in every case listed; so they were forced to take illegal approaches to advance their concerns.
this is only true in some cases, in others you're damn right there is no legal means for a minority to establish a communist form of government or implement Shari'a law. In your view the government is always the villian, and the insurgent always has a just cause. That is baloney.
will this be on the test?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
SJPONeill
Pretty 'good' considering that Singapore wasn't created as a state until 1964...
Quote:
After a period of friction between Singapore and the central government in Kuala Lumpur, Singapore separated from Malaysia on August 9, 1965, and became an independent republic. (U.S. State Dept.)
Singapore - Background entry at U.S. Dept. of State
Quote:
In 1963, the British declared Singapore, the Malay states and Sabah and Sarawak as one independent nation -- Malaysia. But Singapore's membership in this union lasted only two years. In 1965, it was booted out of the federation, owing to disagreements on several fronts including racial issues. (singapore.com)
Singapore History at singapore.com
Quote:
Singapore: Independence - 9 August 1965 (from Malaysian Federation) (CIA World Factbook)
Singapore - Background at CIA World Factbook
Quote:
Singapore officially gained sovereignty on 9 August 1965. (Wikipedia entry)
Singapore - Wikipedia
Still, who is to say what really happened?