Insurgency vs. Civil War

[William F. Owen]

As to the "war is war" position; I hold that not all violence is war and it is dangerous to treat it as such and that COIN is best viewed as a civil emergency by the challenged government. In this light it is EXTREMELY valuable to understand the difference between insurgency and other forms of conflict so that one can apply an appropriate solution.

No one of note suggests that all war is violence.
War is the attempt to force political ideas onto people using violence.

Insurgency just means rebellion or revolt against authority. It has no more character than that, which I can see as useful. Revolts and rebellions have no common cause other than the desire to gain or alter political power, same as all war.

[M-A Lagrange]

Bob's world:
As to the "war is war" position; I hold that not all violence is war and it is dangerous to treat it as such and that COIN is best viewed as a civil emergency by the challenged government. In this light it is EXTREMELY valuable to understand the difference between insurgency and other forms of conflict so that one can apply an appropriate solution.

Bob, I fully agree with you but then we come back to the question: how to deferenciate riots from insurgencies from civil wars.
The GC were written by states who were particularly concerned by protecting their independance and freedom of action to regulate violence, even with extreme violence, inside their borders.

I also believe that what would qualify most of the civil wars is the absence of recognised domestic government.
In an insurgency, the international community recognises 1 national government and does not recognise the opposite party as the official government. And that was all the chalenge of GC protocol 4: how move from police operations which are not covered by GC and are not wars to a situation that is not civil war (I would not qualify it as insurgency) but regognised as war. And therefore GC and law of war would apply.

Because with the too enlarge qualification of a situation as insurgency, there is a dilusion of COIN requirements and response.
A riot needs to have a police response and a governance response. But GC and LAW OF WAR DO NOT APPLY.
An insurgency requires military and governance response. And GC and LAW OF WAR DO APPLY.
How do you make the difference? recognising that the situation is a war is the starting point. War has to be war to be fought as a war. You need to name the game before playing it.

[M-A Lagrange]

No one of note suggests that all war is violence.
War is the attempt to force political ideas onto people using violence.

Insurgency just means rebellion or revolt against authority. It has no more character than that, which I can see as useful. Revolts and rebellions have no common cause other than the desire to gain or alter political power, same as all war.

Wilf, riots are different from war. And states do recognise that difference.
The fact that rebellion are violence used to initiate a change of governance does not mean that they are always the starting point for a change of government.
Look at UK and France difficulties to recognise that Algeria or Ireland were wars and not police operation.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, riots are different from war. And states do recognise that difference.

Rioting is a break down in public order. It is nothing to with the setting forth of a policy via violence. Riots may be a part of that as in the Romanian Revolt of 1989. Revolts are political violence.

The fact that rebellion are violence used to initiate a change of governance does not mean that they are always the starting point for a change of government.
Look at UK and France difficulties to recognise that Algeria or Ireland were wars and not police operation.

War revolts and rebellions always Attempts to alter political power. Northern Ireland was never a war or even described as such. When I was in Algeria in 1995, we were in the middle of a Civil War, and it was called that by the Algerians.

[slapout9]

how to deferenciate riots from insurgencies from civil wars.

IMO rioting is simply a "tactic." It can be used in any type of warfare, no need to deferenciate.

[marct]

IMO rioting is simply a "tactic." It can be used in any type of warfare, no need to deferenciate.

Hey, Slap....

Most of the time I would agree with you, but it is possible for any tactic to become part of cultural norms, just "the thing that's done", and the French, especially the Parisian's, seem to have done that with rioting....

[slapout9]

Hey, Slap....

Most of the time I would agree with you, but it is possible for any tactic to become part of cultural norms, just "the thing that's done", and the French, especially the Parisian's, seem to have done that with rioting....

Sure, in fact if it is successful it will become a norm. At that time we will attempt to give it it's own classification of warfare....like COIN,FID,UW,MF warfare, whole groups of think tanks will be formed to study Rioting Warfare

[M-A Lagrange]

What is happening in Toronto falls under riots, not war. Such as Mai 68 in France.

The difference is important because it gives you the legal frame for operations.
Los Angeles riots were war? I do not think so despite a use of extreme violence and the use of national guards by USA.

But from your point, may be there is a need to consider what the population call the events. If they call it war it's a war. If they call it incident or riot: it's not a war. In fine, we come to the same point: how the government which is actually part of the conflict/event calls it is irrelevent. It's the populace perception that names such a things.

[William F. Owen]

Sure, in fact if it is successful it will become a norm. At that time we will attempt to give it it's own classification of warfare....like COIN,FID,UW,MF warfare, whole groups of think tanks will be formed to study Rioting Warfare

Yeah.... that'll be progress. Suddenly we get to the point where academic distinctions are not actually useful and become counter-productive.

Sorry but riots are not warfare. They may be a small part of a wider conflict, but they will rarely, if ever be decisive, in terms of the specific action. Once rioting and civil disorder becomes so widespread as to change political power, you have an uprising or rebellion.

[Ken White]

Quoth Bob...

For what it's worth, while I recognize the the widely held nature of the positions promoted by both Mr,'s White and Owen, I non-concur on both:

Thy prerogative. As they say, you're entitled to your own opinion even if you are wrong.

Ken knows Vietnam and the history of US involvement there. I don't challenge any of his facts. I look at the facts and assess them based on my understanding of insurgency.

Which we appreciate, as apparently few others possess your consummate knowledge of all things insurgency related.

Too many base their understanding of insurgency based on the US version of the facts. My opinion is that this leads to a very flawed understanding of insurgency. It is based on the perspective of the 3rd party FID actor instead of the 1st party insurgent actor, and lends a bias that confuses the rationale of those who were actually causing the problems and why they were causing them.

That is probably true but you always seem to forget that "too many" is not everyone. If the assumption is that you are the only one who is that prescient, then I suggest that may be incorrect. If the assumption is that one who did understand the nuances would never act on an erroneous basis, I suggest that may also be incorrect. If the assumption is that the US government would or will always act in the best national interest as opposed to own domestic partisan interests, I KNOW that's incorrect.

It is possible for persons to arrive at the same conclusion(s) as you, disregard the potential problems and proceed for various reasons as if there were none. The failure to recognize that "it does not have to be your way to be right" is the one glaring flaw in the Jones model. The perceptions and driving forces of others may not be -- rarely are -- as logical as you would like.

In the case of the US, most foreign efforts in the last 90 years or so have been and are driven almost solely by concerns of domestic politics and quite a bit of detailed knowledge of parameters of the situation are ignored more often than not. That was emphatically the case in Viet Nam and in Iraq regardless of the cover stories. That will likely not change.

In this light it is EXTREMELY valuable to understand the difference between insurgency and other forms of conflict so that one can apply an appropriate solution.

True. The issue seems to be selecting the appropriate solution. Just as you and I look at some of the same facts and draw differing conclusions, others may have a quite different definition of 'appropriate.' Still others may reject all appropriate measures for odd reasons and just react viscerally.

Enlightned governance as promoted by the West demands that such tactics be set aside, and require instead that governments actually listen to their people and make adjustments in how they govern when necesary to maintain stability. Not because they legally have to, but simply because that is what good governance does.

Sigh. Yet again your western centric thought processes seem to overrule your observations and logic and lead you astray. Not everyone subscribes to that 'enlightened' western model. Most in the world are skeptical of it...

You constantly say we shouldn't impose our way yet you wish to judge others by our way. Surely you can see that is a massive dichotomy.

[slapout9]

Once rioting and civil disorder becomes so widespread as to change political power, you have an uprising or rebellion.

Yes, however a revolt or Revolution (American Revolution) has the goal of changing the entire system of government, a rebellion often still believes in the sitting government they just want a particular policy,law,or condition changed(American Prohibition).

[William F. Owen]

Yes, however a revolt or Revolution (American Revolution) has the goal of changing the entire system of government, a rebellion often still believes in the sitting government they just want a particular policy,law,or condition changed(American Prohibition).

Good point - and the old words work best!

[Steve the Planner]

MA:

Thanks for the warranted distinctions.

As a kid in Baltimore, when the King riots broke out, we were wisked off to Grandma's house at the beach.

From my perch in the back of our big Buick Station wagon, I watched the National Guard trucks rolling in as we rolled out, and watched the small groups of protesters in little town, hurling bottles at our car as we sped through.

This was not war, and it was not strategic or tactical. It was mass frustration, shock, horror, anger and a response to that. Civil, or uncivil, actions and reactions must be individually analyzed, just like the French Revolutionary movement.

I was reminded of that in a Michael Semple comment in todays Guardian about the rumors swirling around supposed negotiations between Karzai, ISI and Haqqani.

Michael Semple, a regional expert, said he was alarmed at the speed with which the political class was fissuring.

"Sane people, who've been part of this process all along, are now saying the country won't survive till the end of the year," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...talks-pakistan

He went on to explain that, at present, the meetings are just a rumor, but that the deep fissures are quickly becoming evident.

But the article lays out the obvious parties, mostly Northern Alliance, who stand ready to engage, break, fracture, oppose re-emergence of the Talib-jan and ISI influence in Afghanistan.

I wonder whether announcement of actual talks progressing will provoke the same kind of understandable civil (or uncivil) reaction for the minorities who do not consider Talibs as their "young sons?"

What do we make of the actual Afghans opposing the folks that we do/did/don't support in any given year, when those folks pose specific concerns?

[M-A Lagrange]

William F. Owen:

Good point - and the old words work best!

So shall we stay with the ICRC distinction only:
- Riots (which are not wars)
- Non international war (which covers civil war and insurgency)
- International war (which are what people call war)

[William F. Owen]

So shall we stay with the ICRC distinction only:
- Riots (which are not wars)
- Non international war (which covers civil war and insurgency)
- International war (which are what people call war)

Why the distinction? I revert to my original query. Why do we care when it serves no purpose?

[Rex Brynen]

Why the distinction? I revert to my original query. Why do we care when it serves no purpose?

In this case, the ICRC differentiates because it does make a difference--namely, what parts of international law do and do not apply.

However, in general your original point is spot-on--how we define a category is a function of what, analytically, we want to know. As it applies to England, for example, the category "can beat Germany" is rather different if I'm studying world wars, or world cup football

[M-A Lagrange]

Why the distinction? I revert to my original query. Why do we care when it serves no purpose?

Wilf,

It actually serves a purpose: to protect the combattants and the civilians by regulating the use of violence.
I am sure that former POW are happy to have benefit from that status. It gives an obligation to the parties to feed them, cure them and host them.
You see it as a limit for your operations but s**t happen and they have a utility...
Like you cannot apply collective punishment on civilians or PoW. You cannot kill wounded civilian and soldiers...
It also allows you to provide a status to the opponent:
- civilian in a riot
- combattant in a international or non international war

And finaly it serves the purpose of the States to determine what kind of operation and legal frame they will apply. Knowing that some may be whatching what parties are doing... (IHL does apply to all: State and non State actors!)

[slapout9]

- Riots (which are not wars)

I would seriously consider getting rid of it. Riots may or may not be part of war and warfare at any level or type. The question to ask is WHY are they rioting? When that is known it will help guide you in determining the appropriate response. Rioting is an effect....until you know the cause(motive) you can't properly select a response. At least I couldn't.

[M-A Lagrange]

I would seriously consider getting rid of it. Riots may or may not be part of war and warfare at any level or type. The question to ask is WHY are they rioting? When that is known it will help guide you in determining the appropriate response. Rioting is an effect....until you know the cause(motive) you can't properly select a response. At least I couldn't.

Slap,

the question is the legal status of the people who participate. In a riot taking place in a country at peace (cf L-A riots): the participants are civilians. And rioting is a break of public order punished by the civil code.

In a country at war, the question is more complex. The treatment given to anyone who riots will depend of the political objective of the authority that will use force.

Riots are usefull to qualify "insurgencies"/revolts/rebellion that are not reaching the scale of non international war. It leaves to the governments all liberty to intervene in the limits of civil law. And the people arrested by that government are not soldiers but criminal so they can be charge for murder. A charge you cannot use for a combattant against another combattant.
Actually, it is the States who negociated the GC who imposed that distinction. Knwing that it was done at a time were strikes were illegal and handled as riots whith the use of the army.

[William F. Owen]

It actually serves a purpose: to protect the combattants and the civilians by regulating the use of violence.
I am sure that former POW are happy to have benefit from that status. It gives an obligation to the parties to feed them, cure them and host them.

....but in reality, it doesn't. It fails because most of the so called laws are built on the system of differentiation that fails in application.
What do you do with the 16 year old girl you catch driving the vehicle with 106mm RRL on the back?
If you get captured by Hezbollah, kiss good-bye to your POW status!
I am all for ROE and correct prisoner handling/status, but the supposed differentiation has very little on the practical application.