Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 186

Thread: Insurgency vs. Civil War

  1. #141
    Council Member ryanmleigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    25

    Lightbulb paradigm shift

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    My viewpoint is old school I remember when the Soviet Union said they were going to export Revolution (Insurgency) around the world. In traditional Marxist form they infiltrated foreign agitators to exploit political,economic and social(class) contradictions to start revolutions. They would be happy with a large force revolution or a Coup De' ta (spelling) small force didn't matter much to them. But the key factor was a foreign power(dosen't have to be a state) exporting insurgency(revolution).
    Slapout,
    Understanding where your coming from is helpful. Do you think it still applies to the insurgencies that we are seeing today. Out of the numerous long term insurgencies since the fall of the Soviet Union, there are only a handful that are directly linked to Marxist-Communist ideology (Nepal and Peru being two off the top of my head). Does your paradigm change if we are talking about an conflict with something other than communist ideology. For instance: religious, nationalist movement, anti-colonial, anti-modernity, anti-state nationalism? (GAM, JKLF, LTTE, PKK, ETA, Hamas, IRA, JKHM just to name a few off the top of my head). [For more reading on these please check out Terror, Insurgency, and the State by Heiberg, O'Leary, and Tirman]Would any of these other causes of conflict change your understanding?
    Last edited by ryanmleigh; 07-07-2010 at 07:29 PM. Reason: added examples
    Ryan Leigh
    US Army

  2. #142
    Council Member ryanmleigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    25

    Default Shout out to JMM99

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    not Dr Samabanis (you got it right the second time around). Here's the CV for Nicholas Sambanis, Yale University, Department of Political Science. He's a known factor in the study of "Civil war" from the standpoint of political science, not law.

    That's not my field of expertise - quantitative political science; and my questions remain unanswered - which is fine. Bye-bye.
    Thank you for the correction, not quite sure how that extra a got in there. Sorry to disappoint on not answering your questions. Isn't the discussion stimulating enough to entice you continue to participate? I am an international law neophyte. If you have more to contribute from that aspect I find all of it very interesting. Cheers.
    Ryan Leigh
    US Army

  3. #143
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanmleigh View Post
    Slapout,
    Understanding where your coming from is helpful. Do you think it still applies to the insurgencies that we are seeing today. Out of the numerous long term insurgencies since the fall of the Soviet Union, there are only a handful that are directly linked to Marxist-Communist ideology (Nepal and Peru being two off the top of my head). Does your paradigm change if we are talking about an conflict with something other than communist ideology. For instance: religious, nationalist movement, anti-colonial, anti-modernity, anti-state nationalism? (GAM, JKLF, LTTE, PKK, ETA, Hamas, IRA, JKHM just to name a few off the top of my head). [For more reading on these please check out Terror, Insurgency, and the State by Heiberg, O'Leary, and Tirman]Would any of these other causes of conflict change your understanding?
    It is all exactly the same to me as far as the mthod used,instead of Marx just replace it with a religious cause,ethnic cause or anything else. However Marx has been so forgotten that people don't realize his importance, mostly in economics. Marx is like Clausewitz most people have never read him, but quote him a lot People forget that Marx was an economist before he became a revolutionary. Today's current financial crises is described perfectly by his economic theories but few would even realize that he described the inherent "Crisis Of Capitalism" they just regurgitate some slogan of what somebody said he meant, instead of finding out for themselves. I have strayed from the threads main subject, but economic revolutionaries(insurgencies) are going to be far more prevalent in our future, and may initiate a pretty classic Marxist class type civil war.


    Forgot this:Terrorism is just a form of exporting revolutions to me.
    Last edited by slapout9; 07-07-2010 at 08:46 PM. Reason: stuff

  4. #144
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Ryan,

    how you elect to conduct your thread is up to your judgment and discretion. And, no, I was not disappointed that you chose not to answer either Wilf or me.

    BLUF: I have better things to do than to play the role of a Twenty Questions Answeree (that was a very ancient radio quiz program) to a questioner who won't deign to tell me where he is going with this so-called Members' Project. I posit that you have some sort of project outline, as would befit an infantry soldier - so show me your bloody "sandtable".

    I forgot the url to the Wiki, Civil War that cites Collier, Paul; Sambanis, Nicholas, eds (2005). Understanding Civil War: Evidence and Analysis.

    That Wiki briefly deals with a legal definition in its subsection, Further definitions:

    The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term "civil war". They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character", which includes civil wars. Among the conditions listed are four requirements:[7][8]

    - The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.

    - The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.

    - The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.

    - The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military.

    7.^ Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, (Volume II-B, p. 121).

    8.^ See also the International Committee of the Red Cross commentary on Third 1949 Geneva Convention, Article III, Section "A. Cases of armed conflict" for the ICRC's reading of the definition and a listing of proposed alternate wording.
    Actually, the above quote is an attempt at defining a "belligerent" (not a civil warrior), as opposed to an "insurgent".

    The definition of belligerent in 1968 (re: Vietnam and other conflicts of that era), from Max Sorensen (ed.), Manual of Public International Law (1968) (I'm citing to the hardcover ed. in sec. 5.25 "Recognition of belligerency"):

    As we have already indicated in 5.11, the insurrection of a part of the population of a state against the established government may give rise to a situation where that government can no longer fulfil its state responsibility with respect to third[-party] states in matters arising out of the conflict. In such circumstances, the recognition of belligerency is the proper concern of international law.
    ....
    It is generally agreed that recognition of belligerency should be granted only if:

    i. there exists within the state an armed conflict of a general, as distinct from one of a purely local, character;

    ii. the rebels occupy a substantial portion of the national territory;

    iii. they conduct the hostilities in accordance with the rules of war and through organized groups acting under a responsible authority; and

    iv. there exist circumstances which make it necessary for the recognizing state to define its attitude to the conflict. [JMM, e.g., one or both of the belligerents engage in high seas acts which affect the third-party's shipping]
    These conditions still hold for states (such as the US) that stand on the 1949 GCs and the prior Hague rules. States that have adopted the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II would have different conditions (e.g., "transitory guerrillas" vs the brightline requirements in sub iii bolded above).

    The principal effects of belligerency recognition (by "enough" third party states), and keeping in mind that belligerency recognition is neither recognition of a nation-state nor recognition of a nation state government, are (from Sorensen):

    i. It becomes henceforth possible to apply rules of international law governing the conduct of hostilities to the relations between the recognized lawful government and the recognized belligerent authorities. The civil conflict is transformed into a war governed by international law in all respects, for example, neutrality. ....
    ....
    ii. The international responsibility for the acts of the recognized belligerent authorities is transferred to them from the lawful government. ....
    ...
    The recognition of insurgents as a belligerent power resembles more the recognition of a community as a state than the recognition of an individual or group of individuals as a government. By the effective control of the insurgent government over part of the territory and people of the state involved in civil war an entity is formed which indeed resembles a state in the sense of international law.
    See Common Article 2 of all four 1949 GCs for inclusion and exclusion of Powers to an armed conflict (as opposed to High Contracting Parties) based on their acceptance and application of the 1949 GCs - and this thread, Defending Hamdan.

    "Quid pro quo, Doctor; quid pro quo" - and I may pass on some of Sorensen's comments on defining "Insurgency" (sec. 5.26).

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 07-08-2010 at 02:39 AM.

  5. #145
    Council Member ryanmleigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Mike-
    I thought I had explained my intentions somewhat coherently in post #15. If that doesn't meet the mail, then I apologize for wasting your time. I certainly was not intending on having you answer 20 questions. I was merely trying to stir the pot and generate some discourse which might increase my own understanding of the differences between the two. The gist of my argument is that based on our understanding of a given conflict that we will design strategies in such a way to be successful. If we fundamentally misunderstand a conflict, then any solution that we design for that conflict will be incoherent. I believe that a response that is based on a better understanding will be more effective in achieving our objectives. That's it. Sorry to waste your time.

    P.S. thank you for the legal references. I think they will be useful. I had started to go down the belligerent route, but got sidetracked. I will certainly revisit that again.
    Ryan Leigh
    US Army

  6. #146
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default There is no "right" answer, so here is my take.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanmleigh View Post
    Bob- Would you say that these root conditions are the same for either civil war or insurgency? Or are there different conditions that lead to different forms of warfare. I imagine that the initial conditions (personnel, equipment, funding) would have an impact on the way the conflict progresses.

    Therefore I would also think that there may be different root causes of conflict which make it look, smell, or be an insurgency vice a civil war. Examining the root causes then would be one way to differentiate between the two forms of conflict. Wouldn't you agree?
    Any distinction must provide some value in suggesting a unique type of problem that requires a unique category of solution.

    In that vein, recognizing that over the recorded history of warfare these terms (civil war, revolt, insurrection, insurgency, etc) have been used randomly for a wide range of reasons (a snappy name that rolls off the tongue and is pleasing to the ear probably as high a reason as any), we really cannot look to historic precedence for our answer, merely for examples.

    So, I see insurgency as being any informal, illegal revolt growing out of a populace in response to perceptions of "Poor Governance" (rooted in Legitimacy, Justice, Respect and/or Hope) to address some combination of Revolution (change the government), Resistance (remove an unwanted foreign body) or Separatist (break a chunk off to form a new state). I see these as much more being Civil Emergencies rather that true warfare, and should be addressed in a manner that recognizes that the causation is rooted in how a populace feels about its own governance, and that the government must tailor its response to focus on addressing those perceptions, while managing the violence and dealing with the (by definition) outlaw insurgents in a manner that never forgets they are the tip of an iceberg-like segment of the society, and that one cannot just shave the offensive section of the populace off and resolve the problem.

    Civil War, on the other hand, is when a State breaks cleanly at the start of the conflict into 2 or more distinct legal entities, with clear boundaries and formal governing bodies. The new states willing to fight to retain their newly declared independence, and the remnant of the old state willing to fight to prevent the same. This is more traditional warfare between these two governments. Once the Civil War is resolved by accepted principles of warfare, however, one may find them self with all of the conditions of insurgency as described above that must be appreciated and managed as well.

    Some may say that I am leaning too heavily on the American experience. No, it is merely a distinction that to me provides some form of worthwhile merit.

    So, between a populace and its government: insurgency.

    When a new government forms, and a new state is formed: Civil War.

    In Iraq then, to find a current example, If the new Kurdish state with its distinct border and governance and the existing Iraqi state square off over the desire of greater sovereignty for that Kurdish state, it would be civil war. Any thing that has happened in Iraq over the past 7 years has not, IMO, been civil war.

    (note: even with this distinction, it gets fuzzy pretty fast for a separatist movement; such movements probably need to be addressed with a mix of approaches from the start)
    Last edited by Bob's World; 07-08-2010 at 01:03 PM.
    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)

  7. #147
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Civil War, on the other hand, is when a State breaks cleanly at the start of the conflict into 2 or more distinct legal entities, with clear boundaries and formal governing bodies. The new states willing to fight to retain their newly declared independence, and the remnant of the old state willing to fight to prevent the same. This is more traditional warfare between these two governments. Once the Civil War is resolved by accepted principles of warfare, however, one may find them self with all of the conditions of insurgency as described above that must be appreciated and managed as well.

    Some may say that I am leaning too heavily on the American experience. No, it is merely a distinction that to me provides some form of worthwhile merit.
    I think there are two rules of thumb that ought to guide conceptual definitions:

    1) Does the category have any analytical utility? The whole purpose of applying labels and drawing conceptual boundaries, after all, is to aid analysis.

    2) Does the use of the term more-or-less coincide with the way the term is used by scholars and a broader audience? If it doesn't there is simply too much scope for increased confusion.

    Your definition of "civil war" certainly meets test #1, but I would argue it doesn't meet test #2, since it excludes a great many things that most folks understand as "civil wars" (Lebanon, Algeria, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc).

    Instead, your definition seems to better fit the existing category of "wars of secession."

    On a side note--since my current summer job involves pouring over hundreds of intel judgments to look at the way language is used, and the ambiguities that can arise from this--the whole discussion highlights the way in which analysts need to be very careful that the terms they use in assessments or policy advice are understood by clients in the same way. From the discussion above, it's clear that if someone wrote a memo to Bob and I warning of "a growing risk of civil war" the two of us might well understand that prediction in very different ways...
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  8. #148
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Marse Robert,

    I believe we have at least a temporary agreement on most points - some suggestions and comments; submittted with the hope that you will stay on the rez (a forlorn hope, but a hope ).

    from BW
    ... in response to perceptions of "Poor Governance" (rooted in Legitimacy, Justice, Respect and/or Hope....
    I'd suggest something like a "negative perception of existing governance" (by the insurgent group) and leave out value-laden terms such as "good, poor and bad governance". A good chunk of objections to your theories comes from your use of those terms.

    As to "Legitimacy", that is one of my current buzzwords - which I have not tried to define in general terms; but for which, I could provide some examples (besides the obvious legal ones) rooted in my concepts of Ideology, Opportunity and Security (or of "relatively better insecurity" in more Marc Legrangian terms). That triad may not be much different than your Justice, Respect and/or Hope triad.

    Yup, as to as much emphasis on Civil Emergency as is "reasonably possible" (how's them for litigation language). Meet violence with violence (with no apologies for being violent). Meet non-violence with non-violence (cutting the insurgents some slack by not over-reacting to smaller provocations) - let the insurgents up the ante to terrorism (Intefada I vs Intefada II). Generally, meet military with military; political with political (realizing that political insurgencies can develop a nasty side in a hurry - and that some counter-violence will still be needed in the political struggle).

    from BW
    Civil War, on the other hand, is when a State breaks cleanly at the start of the conflict into 2 or more distinct legal entities, with clear boundaries and formal governing bodies. The new states willing to fight to retain their newly declared independence, and the remnant of the old state willing to fight to prevent the same. This is more traditional warfare between these two governments. Once the Civil War is resolved by accepted principles of warfare, however, one may find them self with all of the conditions of insurgency as described above that must be appreciated and managed as well.

    Some may say that I am leaning too heavily on the American experience. No, it is merely a distinction that to me provides some form of worthwhile merit.

    So, between a populace and its government: insurgency.

    When a new government forms, and a new state is formed: Civil War.
    I've no real objection to looking at civil war in this way. Basically, you are equating a "civil war" with "recognition of a belligerent", which is similar to (but not the same as) "recognition of a new state" - the Soresen concept explained above. Don't simplify too much here - "distinct legal entities" are fine; but "new states" go a bridge too far.

    As you recognize (and we agree), bright lines are hard to draw.

    In simple terms, a "belligerent" is an "insurgent" who has gained some respect. Or, in my local Finlander terms, a belligerent is a "hi'glas" insurgent - or a drunken Finlander.

    Our Civil Rights struggle and our Civil War are fine examples of a non-violent response and a violent response. We've never differed on those.

    Now, if we can just work on the American Revolution and get around to my (proper) interpretation of the Declaration of Independence.

    -----------------------
    Brief note to Rex.

    from Rex
    I think there are two rules of thumb that ought to guide conceptual definitions:

    1) Does the category have any analytical utility? The whole purpose of applying labels and drawing conceptual boundaries, after all, is to aid analysis.

    2) Does the use of the term more-or-less coincide with the way the term is used by scholars and a broader audience? If it doesn't there is simply too much scope for increased confusion.
    No doubt. That's why I prefer "recognition of belligerency" cuz that's been around from before the Hague Rules.

    If belligerency is recognized, that recognition will cause (or should cause) a change in policy in each of the affected Powers. Since both the military struggle and the political struggle are (or should be) merely continuations of policy by other means (how's that for slipping in a little Mao-Giap), the expected changes in policies have some analytical value.

    The drawback in using I Law terms is your second point - they are fairly well defined (at least well exemplified), but lack a broad audience.

    Regards

    Mike
    Last edited by jmm99; 07-08-2010 at 03:32 PM.

  9. #149
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Yea, verily...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    I think there are two rules of thumb that ought to guide conceptual definitions:

    1) Does the category have any analytical utility? The whole purpose of applying labels and drawing conceptual boundaries, after all, is to aid analysis.

    2) Does the use of the term more-or-less coincide with the way the term is used by scholars and a broader audience? If it doesn't there is simply too much scope for increased confusion.
    Which I submit is the case in this attempt to finitely define the infinitely indefinable.

    For what purpose?
    ...analysts need to be very careful that the terms they use in assessments or policy advice are understood by clients in the same way.
    Quite true and perhaps counterintuitively, also exceedingly difficult. Few things are as simple as we would like them to be, warfare and it's cousins particularly so. I've watched this thread from inception and Post 15 not withstanding still have the same question. Why?

  10. #150
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post

    Civil War, on the other hand, is when a State breaks cleanly at the start of the conflict into 2 or more distinct legal entities, with clear boundaries and formal governing bodies. The new states willing to fight to retain their newly declared independence, and the remnant of the old state willing to fight to prevent the same. This is more traditional warfare between these two governments.
    OK but that does accurately describer either English Civil War, or even the Lebanese Civil War. It only marginally describes the US Civil War. Were not the Southerners called "Rebels?"
    Once the Civil War is resolved by accepted principles of warfare, however, one may find them self with all of the conditions of insurgency as described above that must be appreciated and managed as well.
    We have principle of Warfare???
    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

  11. #151
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    OK but that does accurately describer either English Civil War, or even the Lebanese Civil War. It only marginally describes the US Civil War. Were not the Southerners called "Rebels?"
    Early IO, Wilf. Early IO. The Southern states had a functional central government, complete with ambassadors sent to Europe. And they came close enough to official recognition to worry a number of folks in Washington on more than a couple of occasions. Remember that the Confederates actually put conscription into practice before the Federal government, and were collecting taxes and supporting a coordinated war effort. Their emphasis was on states' rights (to a fault in some cases), but the government of Jefferson Davis did function as a national government (even if it didn't gain outside recognition in the formal sense) until close to the end of the war.

    Was their goal realistic? I don't happen to think so. But don't confuse an unrealistic goal with lack of execution or internal governmental function.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  12. #152
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    Early IO, Wilf. Early IO. The Southern states had a functional central government, complete with ambassadors sent to Europe. And they came close enough to official recognition to worry a number of folks in Washington on more than a couple of occasions. .
    IO? More like actual diplomacy, and yes, IIRC Queen Victoria did recognise the South.
    Yes, the South had a functioning local government, and became a de-facto state, so wouldn't that make it State v State. In the English Civil Wars, the wars were for control of the nation. In the US Civil War the war was for secession. Correct? The South wanted their own state.

    ...and point being why is this important?
    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

  13. #153
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    All,

    As I began my last post, merely my opinion, and that historical use of these terms provides little help as there has been no single set of rules to guide the naming conventions of those conflicts.

    Will violently agree with anyone who suggests that many conflicts that are widely referred to as "Civil Wars" are in fact some form of insurgency. On that note, the American Revolution is much more an English Civil War than the "English Civil War" was.

    Note that the causal factors (which Mike, Rex, et al, I define in my paper and use consistently IAW those definitions) for Civil War are often the same as the causal factors for Insurgency. The difference comes then in how those conditions manifest.

    They may manifest as non-violent, but illegal subversion.

    They may manifest as violent, illegal insurgency.

    They may manifest by a decision to form governments, build armies, and declare independence as a new state.

    In that last case, I believe the state-on-state conflict can be approached as war, but that in the first two that it is best approached as civil emergency. I also believe that once the rebel "state" is defeated one may well find them self with either a subversion or an insurgency on their hands, and that they should keep that in mind as they fight the war, and be prepared to transition to MSCA-based COIN practices to deal with the subsequent civil emergency.

    (Oh, has to "staying on the reservation," I've always held in higher regard those who refused to submit to the rule of their oppressors and stayed off the reservation, than those who surrendered everything they stood for to accept a role cast for them by those same oppressors.)
    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)

  14. #154
    Council Member tequila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,665

    Default

    IIRC Queen Victoria did recognise the South.
    If she did, her Government did not.

  15. #155
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,149

    Default Recognising the Confederacy

    Wilf stated:
    yes, IIRC Queen Victoria did recognise the South
    No, Great Britain did not recognise the Confederacy and even though Queen Victoria had influence exercising the royal perogative like that was not an option. Recognition was subject to a public and parliamentary debate. As I recall the USN -v- blockade runenrs did cause a few diplomatic "storms".
    davidbfpo

  16. #156
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tequila View Post
    If she did, her Government did not.
    In which case I stand corrected. Having said that, the British Army did attach at a number of observers to the Southern Army at various times.
    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

  17. #157
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
    IO? More like actual diplomacy, and yes, IIRC Queen Victoria did recognise the South.
    Yes, the South had a functioning local government, and became a de-facto state, so wouldn't that make it State v State. In the English Civil Wars, the wars were for control of the nation. In the US Civil War the war was for secession. Correct? The South wanted their own state.

    ...and point being why is this important?
    It's important because you stated earlier that the US Civil War only marginally met Bob's definition. In fact it comes much closer to his definition than you seem to realize. And that makes it important within the context of his discussion.

    The South's government wasn't a de-facto state. In its view it was a state. The key is "in its view." The Federal government never recognized the South's proclaimed right to leave the Union, but if you use Bob's definition you have two "states"-one fighting to leave the existing order and the other trying to maintain the existing order.

    And your memory is correct, David. The blockade runners caused a number of issues, both in terms of the Navy's response to them and the fact that some of them were constructed and fitted out in British shipyards. So you had protest and counter protest, but much of that died out after 1863.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  18. #158
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Recognition, recognition & recognition

    I have to write briefly here in support of both Wilf and David - sucka$$ that I must be.

    There are three kinds of recognition:

    1. Recognition of the existence of a nation-state.

    2. Recognition of the government (or lack thereof) for that state.

    3. Recognition of one or more belligerents (other than the lawful government) within that state.

    In the pecking order of the three recognitions, recognition of a belligerent is the least significant; but better than being a mere insurgent. These are 19th century legal terms, BTW; although insurrection and rebellion were used as often as not, rather than insurgency.

    The key three events re: Wilf's point and David's counterpoint were:

    19 & 27 Apr 1861 - Pres. Lincoln proclaims blockades of southern ports; Congress not being in session.

    13 May 1861 - Queen Vic issued her proclamation of neutrality, which was followed by similar declarations or acquiescences by other nations.

    13 July 1861 - Congress ratified the southern blockades and gave its act retrospective application to the presidential proclamations in April.

    Queen Vic's proclamation of neutrality constituted recognition of the South as a belligerent (but not as a nation-state or a lawful government), as decided by Justice Grier's majority opinion in the Prize Cases, 2 Black 635 (1863).

    So both Wilf and David are right; but also are guilty of not specifying which recognition was given (type 3) and which were refused (types 1 and 2).

    Besides the Prize Cases, another set of cases (involving less money, but life itself) hinged on belligerency. In the early days of the Civil War, some Confederate soldiers and sailors were indicted, tried and sentenced to be executed for treason (land) or piracy (sea). No executions were carried out; and the prisoners were quietly turned over to the military to be detained as EPWs. Justice Grier (a moderate in an era of absolutism) was involved in that process as well.

    General Order 100 (Lieber Code) of 1863 also regularized the conduct of the war; and is granddaddy to the Hague and Geneva Conventions.

    Some habeas issues still persisted after 1863 (e.g., Ex Parte Milligan). But, as Steve correctly notes, the legal issues raised by belligerency quieted down after 1863.

    Regards

    Mike

  19. #159
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    At the risk of complicating things a lot this is talked about in some of the articles on 4GW (4th Generation Warfare) the decline of the legitimacy of the Nation/State which is being attacked by population groups that will no longer support them or perform the legitimate functions of Government for them because they have been sold off or outsourced. So you get Insurgents,Guerrillas,Ethic groups,Regular Criminals,Cross Border Criminals,Rouge International Corporations,Tali-Banksters,Religious Groups, Pink Elephants,Talk show hosts and Rolling Stone reporters.


    For your listening pleasure and cultural enhancement. "Ball Of Confusion" by The Temptations

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miZWYmxr8XE
    Last edited by slapout9; 07-09-2010 at 02:57 AM. Reason: add some jamz

  20. #160
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Concepts of Sovereignty are indeed changing. Classic example is the "Failed" and "Failing" State list, with criteria that essentially define a successful state as one that conforms to the Western standards born of Westphalia. Most such states, not surprisingly, are in places as Africa, where such foreign forms of governance were imposed upon them by Colonial masters. As they reject these foreign concepts and seek forms that make more sense within their own cultures they are branded as "failed" by the West.

    I think the Kurdish situation as well as the Pashtun situation cry out for fresh perspectives on Sovereignty as well. Ways to recognize unique forms of autonomy within multiple states, without also having to rip those same states apart first to do so.
    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)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •