If we're going to use the term we need to define it. The term seems pretty well entrenched, so something approaching a consensus definition might be useful.
Whatever we choose to call them, intra-state conflicts where a portion of a populace fights its own government seem distinct enough to warrant special study of the problems and opportunities associated with them, which are not necessarily shared with inter-state conflicts.
AgreedOriginally Posted by Dayuhan
Call them "Small Wars" or "Irregular Warfare." I'm very happy with Revolts and Rebellions. There have been at least as many revolts and rebellions as Wars between nations, peoples, and/or societies, so none of this is new except for the silly language.Whatever we choose to call them, intra-state conflicts where a portion of a populace fights its own government seem distinct enough to warrant special study of the problems and opportunities associated with them, which are not necessarily shared with inter-state conflicts.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Revolts and Rebellions are excellent terms for what they describe. "Small War" or "Irregular Warfare" are a bit broader... the conflict in Afghanistan, for example, could be called "Irregular Warfare" (given the number of troops currently committed I'm not sure it deserves to be called "small"), but it is certainly not a revolt or a rebellion.
To some extent the issues are semantic, but not entirely: when you call a thing something it's not, that conditions perception and response.
As far as the Rand study goes, it's interesting and I'm sure useful in many ways, but I'm not sure its conclusions can be easily applied to Afghanistan. I also do not quite understand how anyone can produce a 270 page academic monograph analyzing insurgencies that does not present a definition of insurgency right up front.
I will offer to this thread on "how insurgencies end" that if it erupts into violence again within 20 years in that same popualce, that the previous insurgency was merely suppressed, most likely through brute force, but that the underlying causal factors.
Too often militaries and governments slap themselves on the back and chalk a "W" up in the history book, when in fact all they did was beat the populace into submission.
So, in my book, the end of violence is not the end of insurgency, it is the resolution of the failures of governance that is causing the populace to revolt, along with the end of violence that ends an insurgency.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
If the violence is ended or reduced, it is a WIN. The military has ensured that the transfer of power did not take place using armed force. That is success by any measure.
If the locals vote in the party that got beaten in the insurgency, then OK. They didn't get there using force.
Bob, you are a soldier, NOT a policy maker. Your job is killing. An "insurgency" is the us of violence. No violence, no insurgency! Without violence Folks are back to politics and the insurgency has been defeated.So, in my book, the end of violence is not the end of insurgency, it is the resolution of the failures of governance that is causing the populace to revolt, along with the end of violence that ends an insurgency.
The sole job of the US Forces (and UK and NATO) is to defeat the opposing armed force. IT IS NOT to create governance, or democracy or do "nation building!"
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
WILF,
My profession has little impact on the nature of insurgency, its causes and its cures.
So, be I a soldier, a minister, or a pole dancer, the fact remains, that when the military rolls in and simply crushes that segement of the populace that dares to stand up to the failures of governance, it is not a "Win" no matter how many generals say so in their Memoirs.
So, while the military is not in the role or setting policy, we are quite likely to be the ones looked to to have a sophisticated understanding of insurgency, and if ones understanding is that it can be resolved solely through violence, I would argue that they lack the requisite sophistication required of them as a military professional.
20 years ago perhaps one could get away with an "all violence is war, and the suppression of any violence is peace" approach, but I believe that such cavalier approaches are simply no longer viable.
Robert C. Jones
Intellectus Supra Scientia
(Understanding is more important than Knowledge)
"The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)
As long as I never pushed $20 into your underwear....
So let me get this right. Are there any non-violent insurgencies, and if so, is military action required?So, while the military is not in the role or setting policy, we are quite likely to be the ones looked to to have a sophisticated understanding of insurgency, and if ones understanding is that it can be resolved solely through violence, I would argue that they lack the requisite sophistication required of them as a military professional.
You use armed force against armed force. An insurgency is the use of armed force. Destroy or defeat that armed force and you have solved to problem in terms of the problem being an insurgency. Anything else is simply none of your problem.20 years ago perhaps one could get away with an "all violence is war, and the suppression of any violence is peace" approach, but I believe that such cavalier approaches are simply no longer viable.
It makes about as much sense as asking a Car mechanic to paint your house.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks