Gun Control in Counterinsurgency

[Dayuhan]

The working mines are well south of here, mainly in Benguet, though Lepanto (established during the US colonial period, long before the tribes were coordinated enough - or well enough armed - to mount effective resistance) is on the southern edge of Kankanaey country. Observation of the impact of those mines is one of the main reasons why the opposition is so energetic.

The resistance isn't all military. The locals are heavily networked with environmental and indigenous rights groups worldwide, and they're good with media. (The chairperson of the UN Permanent Commission on Indigenous Issues lives just over the hill from me, and other locals are well distributed in similar positions.) If an American, Australian, Canadian or European company got involved they could count on demonstrations at HQ and at shareholder meetings, attention from local media, and everyone from their shareholders to their grandmothers getting letters accusing them of genocide. The combination of armed resistance and political pressure works pretty well; the companies are PR conscious and there are other easier deposits of minerals. I suppose the greatest danger would be a venture combining Chinese and Philippine political crony influence; a lot less concern with popular opinion there. We'll see. So far the fear that attempted exploitation would put the tribes back in the NPA camp has been more potent than the desire for minerals.

Aguinaldo got stuck in Lubuagan, an interesting story. They were trying desperately to get out to the Cagayan Valley but the Americans were onto them and kept blocking the routes. They ended up passing through some places that would make a rough and difficult trip even today. Judging from the diaries of some of those involved it was a very unhappy time...

[jmm99]

from you
The resistance isn't all military.

Good for you all - stick to your guns.

Cheers

Mike

[Bob's World]

True, but you're not always dealing with "a populace". An example might be the valley to the northwest that I described above, or for that matter much of the main island of Mindanao. here you have two populaces, one composed of settlers that have been largely in place for several generations and see themselves as the natural and progressive inheritors of the land, the other an indigenous populace that sees themselves as oppressed by invaders. Both populaces are heavily armed and ready to go at each other at the slightest provocation. It's often forgotten, for example, that the Muslim "insurgency" in Mindanao did not begin with secessionist insurgents fighting the government. It began with militias formed by Christian settlers fighting militias formed by indigenous Muslims.

I wouldn't necessarily say the best approach is to disarm, but the situation is a whole lot more complicated than just respecting "the populace"... especially when various populaces have mutually exclusive demands and are prepared to fight for them.

I suspect that this situation is not unique... it's simply meant to illustrate the limitations of the assumption that internal strife stems from the relationship between a government and a monolithic populace.

People naturally flow from Bad to Good, in terms of places to live; and if a place is Good, then there are typically people already there. At work they were chewing on the problem of illegal immigrants to the US; I came in late to the debate so I listened to what they were discussing from where my head was in the realm of insurgency. My sound byte was: "We don't have an immigration problem, we have an integration problem. "

There will always be friction between those who are first in time and those who come after; or more accurately, those who are there currently and those who come next; as any place worth living has seen this play out repeatedly through the history of mankind. It's natural, like a forest fire or a hurricane is natural; so is the friction and violence. Nature has a way of sorting itself out, but our question is how to we quicken the process and mitigate the violent aspect of it.

I link this to the "Respect" category on my model. Both sides of the story have legitimate issues, but do both feel that they are being treated as equals by the government? Do both sides feel that they receive "Justice" under the rule of law? Do both sides recognize the legitimacy of the government, both locally and nationally, and do they feel that they have trusted and certain means to influence change?

If the answer is yes to all, then this will all integrate in short order and no gun control is required. If, on the other hand the answer is no, then there will be continued problems that may well erupt into violence, and no amount of gun control can prevent it. I doubt very much that either group wants to be "controlled"; but if one group can leverage the government to control the other you will have insurgency and it will be the government's fault when it happens.

[MikeF]

"We don't have an immigration problem, we have an integration problem. "

Well said.

[Dayuhan]

I link this to the "Respect" category on my model. Both sides of the story have legitimate issues, but do both feel that they are being treated as equals by the government? Do both sides feel that they receive "Justice" under the rule of law? Do both sides recognize the legitimacy of the government, both locally and nationally, and do they feel that they have trusted and certain means to influence change?

Ideally, of course, the government would act as an honest and impartial mediator in such cases. When we get out of models and into the nastiness of reality, this becomes very hard to do, because the various sides in the picture will have deeply skewed and incompatible definitions of neutrality.

Think of a hotly contested European football match between traditional rivals. The supporters of the losing side will always blame the referee and claim bias. If the match is a draw they would have won if not for the ref. They only see the decisions that seem to favor the other side; those that favored their side are invisible. If violence ensues after the match (as it sometimes does) it's really not because of bad refereeing, it's because there are large numbers of testosterone-fueled lads on both sides itching for an excuse to have at each other.

In practice, neutrality often just pisses off both sides, especially when much of the populace is demanding bias.

I agree that in such cases neutrality and equal justice are the best policy and that gun control specifically is not likely to accomplish much, but those goals are very difficult to achieve and they do not in any way assure a peaceful outcome.

[Rex Brynen]

Fearful Iraqis scrambling to buy weapons

By Leila Fadel
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 31, 2010

BAGHDAD - Four days after his brother was slain in a Baghdad robbery this month, Muntather Shaker borrowed $1,500 and bought a pistol. He carries it in his back pocket, sleeps with it under his pillow and is ready to use it to defend his family.

"If I thought the government could protect me, I would never buy a weapon," he said. "We don't know what will happen when the Americans leave."

Shaker is one of many Iraqis who feel they must depend on themselves for protection now that the U.S. military has drawn down to just under 50,000 troops and will end combat operations Tuesday.

The withdrawing troops have left behind a country with only a tenuous hold on stability: Nearly six months after parliamentary elections, no new government has formed, violence is on the rise and Iraq's security forces are being targeted.

Despite assurances that the United States is not abandoning Iraq, people here are scrambling to prepare themselves. Weapons dealers in Fallujah, Baghdad, Mosul and Kirkuk said sales of personal-protection weapons are up by 30 to 50 percent in the past four months....

[jmm99]

It is no surprise. The OP article and Schmedlap's comments (page 1 of thread) presaged what many Iraqis feel is needed - personal security weapons. Whether they will or will not provide that security is quite another issue.

The irony is that Iraq is a very gun-controlled, gun-licensed nation (snip from the current article):

For Kobaissi and the Shaker family, the hope is that weapons will deter the next attack. But their weapons are illegal.

The Interior Ministry, which oversees police and security issues, stopped issuing weapons licenses more than a year ago, and it is illegal for anyone to have a weapon without a license. But Iraqis still buy weapons from black-market dealers. Men train their wives to use the guns in case of emergency, and they hope it will be enough.

Local police largely look the other way, in spite of Interior Ministry orders.

"The number of personal weapons in a country like Iraq are too high right now, even though the Ministry of Interior is not issuing new licenses," said a statement from the Interior Ministry's general inspector's office.

Regards

Mike

[Tracker275]

Those who pound their guns into plows, plow for those who don't.

...That is all I have to say on their situation. Of course, no different than anywhere else in the world.