Slap, a wise old Brit
Sir Robert Thompson said, in his book Defeating Communist Insurgency, "If the [revolutionary] organization is already established, well-trained, and disciplined., it will not be defeated by reforms designed to eliminate the cause. It will only be defeated by establishing a superior organization and applying measures to break the revolutionary organization." (For revolutionary organization we can substitute the insurgents or insurgent organization.)
Cheers
JohnT
That seems to pretty much describe the various fighting factions during the Russian Revolution. I can't find the exact quote at the moment, but Lenin said something like, "Power was rolling around in the streets and we just happened to pick it up."Originally Posted by John T. Fishel
And actually, the demise of the Russian Empire is an interesting history regarding questions on insurgency. There were organizations that began as ideological movements, then became what we might call insurgents, then fielded conventional fighting forces during the civil war, then were beaten to return to underground movements, insurgents etc. Added into this were many nationalist/separatist movements, anarchists, plus a lot of foreign intervention.
Since the definition of insurgency seems to be continually up for debate, I'm beginning to wonder if it isn't one of those things that exists in the eye of the beholder - IOW kind of like pornography - difficult to describe, but one "knows it when they see it."
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
A tremendous number of insurgencies have occurred and likely
will in future occur not due to poor governance but simply to replace whatever governance exists -- good, bad or as most are, indifferent -- with 'OUR governance.'
Government is not a terribly natural thing. It is needed but it is rarely truly good -- people intrude and screw it up -- I can think of no nation that has a truly 'totally satisfied with the government' population. I can think of a great many that have political parties or grouping that do not like the current milieu and wish to change it. The drive to do that violently often comes from the "poor governane" aspect -- it also comes from the 'we want OUR governance' crowd.
As Steve Metz said:That's true and the western construct can lead one down a primrose path...The unspoken assumption is that insurgencies occur because states don't adequately follow the Western-defined path, and will be defeated if states do.
Seems to me that Insurgency thus can be -- most often is -- a strategy. If adopted as a strategy by the Insurgents, their issue then becomes the degree or intensity for the insurgency, i.e, what techniques or methods will be used to implement the strategy.
Or, to quote Slapout9:Yep and IMO, that makes it a Strategery to use that method to exploit sumpn...Insurgency is a Method....used by a Motivated individual(s).....to exploit any available Opportunity.
Common sense versus American Liberalism
Ken, as you well know I strongly agree with your view,
Legitimacy is concept that we in the West approach with great bias based on American liberalism (and usually promoted by our lawyers), yet it has little to do with real reasons people fight. In the simpliest and truest terms insurgency is a violent struggle for power. The victor whether insurgent or the current regime will never be viewed as legitimate by all in the vast majority of countries. America and some nations are unique in that we established a functional melting pot, but that is not a model we can impose on other nations. Of course that didn't happen overnight, and it can be argued we didn't achieve internal stability until 100 years after the Civil War.will in future occur not due to poor governance but simply to replace whatever governance exists -- good, bad or as most are, indifferent -- with 'OUR governance.'
Posted by John T.
This is a fact that has been demonstrated again and again throughout history. At this point it is no longer really about politics, but more about basic pychology and sociology principles that influence people's behavior. Too many people confuse the underlying causes that led insurgencies to oust the illegitimate colonialists after WWII with all cases of insurgency. Insurgency in 2010 is not about throwing out colonial governments and replacing them with even worse governments, but a struggle for power that has little to do with legitimacy and much more to do with greed and hatred.Sir Robert Thompson said, in his book Defeating Communist Insurgency, "If the [revolutionary] organization is already established, well-trained, and disciplined., it will not be defeated by reforms designed to eliminate the cause. It will only be defeated by establishing a superior organization and applying measures to break the revolutionary organization." (For revolutionary organization we can substitute the insurgents or insurgent organization.)
Finally injecting UW into the insurgency debate simply muddies the waters. UW is an American definition for a means that other nations and non-state organizations have used for centuries. For the regime still being challenged it is a State sponsored insurgency. It is still an insurgency. Iran may use the strategy of insurgency to pursue its goals in Lebanon for example. This is the risk of falling in love with our definitions, we'll end up describing and responding to the conflict in a way that conforms to our pre-determined definitions and doctrine.
Strategy
as I understand it, requires a desired end, a way of getting to that end, and the means (resources) to accomplish it. A strategy of insurgency would require all three - insurgency, as Slap suggests, is in these terms a method (way), ie part of a strategy. So, unless strategy is redefined to be a method, then to call insurgency a strategy one would have to define it in ends, ways, and means terms. (Is that how you are defining insrgency, Steve?) Unless insurgency is defined in strategic terms, I will continue to prefer Bob's defining it as a condition.
Regarding the culture boundedness of such concepts as legitimacy, I will fall back on the points I was making earlier along with Bob's articulation.
As to the causes of insurgency and its identification with a struggle for power: we are back to Hans Moregnthau's statement in all editions of his Politics Amongnations going back to 1948, "International politics, LIKE ALL POLITICS, is a struggle for power." (emphasis added) This, in turn, harks back to St. Carl aka CvC. In practical terms, however, if there is no more reason for you to support me than my group wants power over the guys that already have it, then that insurgency is very likely to fail. Unless the method of the insurgents is a coup d'etat, there are damn few resources available for the insurgents to overturn the government. As you are all well aware, most insurgencies fail, dying in their infancy, never really posing a threat to the survival of the governments they seek to overthrow. An American case in point that was very ideological is that of the Weather Underground and its leader Bill Ayers.
Cheers
JohnT
Jt
I like your opening paragraph.
Steve, how does that impact on your definition?
Given some time, I might be able to expand insurgency beyond "means" to include all elements of strategy. Just not now.
??
Posted by John T.
John, I don't understand your argument in this case. I agree that insurgency is also a condition as Bob stated (we may differ on why it exists), but I think insurgency is clearly a strategy.as I understand it, requires a desired end, a way of getting to that end, and the means (resources) to accomplish it. A strategy of insurgency would require all three - insurgency, as Slap suggests, is in these terms a method (way), ie part of a strategy. So, unless strategy is redefined to be a method, then to call insurgency a strategy one would have to define it in ends, ways, and means terms. (Is that how you are defining insrgency, Steve?) Unless insurgency is defined in strategic terms, I will continue to prefer Bob's defining it as a condition.
The insurgent organization generally has a desired goal (ends), the means and ways are somewhat blended in my view and can consist of forming militia groups to conduct small to large scale attacks, employing terrorists, employing propaganda, economic sabotage, etc., but all of these must support the overarching strategy. I realize I'm back tracking on my first post, but if insurgency is the only means/ways they have to over throw a regime then I think it is the strategy. On the other hand if it is a State sponsored insurgency for the sponsoring State it is a way to achieve its ends, but for the insurgents it is still their strategy. Thoughts?
Bill, the insurgent clearly has a choice of ways and means
as well as ends. Unsually, the ends are the overthrow of the recognized (or at least constituted) government. But, if he has control of such means as key parts of the military he can choose a coup d'etat has his method (way). If, on the other hand, he has half the army (means), he can fight a conventional war (way). If he has neither and limited political organization, he can use his few resources to conduct terrorist attacks in the hope of using that to gain the resources (militias, more terrorists, front groups) to mount a classic revolutionary campaign.
Anyway, that's what I mean.
Cheers
JohnT
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks