Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

[Merv Benson]

Rather than tie ourselves in knots over describing the enemy, it is clear to me that whether they are called Insurgents or terrorist they are using a raiding strategy. The response to a raiding strategy is what we are now seeing in Baghdad with a troops surge that has a high concentration of force to space in the area where the enemy wants to operate. Their are check points to make movement to contact more difficult for the enemy. Troops patrol the area to look for the enemy and also make his movement more difficult. The enemy is most vulnerable when he is trying to move and these tactics inhibit movement.

The enemy in Iraq has shown little interest in a hearts and minds strategy. He seeks to dominate through intimidation in much the same way Saddam did when he was in power. Those facts argue in favor of calling him a terrorist. But what ever you call him he is still a raider.

[Bill Moore]

I think the "raider" strategy is a gross attempt at over simplifying the threat, nor does it offer much in designing a counter strategy. The enemy raids, infiltrates, occuppies, defends, establishes parallel shadow governments, etc. We're not fighting a one trick pony. If the only response to a so called raider strategy is to saturate the area, then we have lost, because we can only saturate so much area for so long. I'll meet you half way and admit the enemy uses raiding as one line of operation, and that robust population control measures will impede that line of operation, but the enemy will quickly adapt to the measures, and then we'll develop counter measures, and so the game is played.

The enemy is focused on the population, and we seem to forget there is more than one way to skin a cat. You can attempt to win the populations' good will, or you can demand it through coercion. Is it terror? Of course, but is also an insurgent strategy. Not all insurgents embrace Mao's little book, even Mao didn't follow it. You can swim in the sea by joining a school of fish and blending in, or you can become a shark and swim where you like.

We accept too way too many ideas as scared principles, when they are far from it. You don't have to win the hearts and minds. Did the Russians win the hearts and minds in Eastern Europe? Did Mao really win the hearts and minds? His new biography is revealing.

[marct]

Rather than tie ourselves in knots over describing the enemy, it is clear to me that whether they are called Insurgents or terrorist they are using a raiding strategy. The response to a raiding strategy is what we are now seeing in Baghdad with a troops surge that has a high concentration of force to space in the area where the enemy wants to operate.

Merv, I wold certainly agree with Bill that "raiding" is a tactical option rather than a strategy. Some of the confusion here might be coming fromn the specifics: "raiding", in the sense of a cultural adaptation, is quite commong amongst pastoralist groups (I'm not going to go into lecture mode, so don't worry ). Even historically, however, "raiding" aimed at shaping the "hearts and minds" of the population that was being raided. Check out the Epic of Gilgamesh if you want an early example from Iraq. The point behind the tactic, however, was to get access to resources that the pastoralists had difficulty producing themselves; it's not a "war" strategy except in certain very limited cases.

Furthermore, and again with the historical examples, the set piece defense or saturation, doesn't work in the long term. As with most strategies of this type, you have to bind the raiders into a coalition or alliance system, historically usually based around kinship (see how Alexander dealt with the Sogdians). The trick is always to get enough of these groups into that alliance and use them against the ones who won't join. In modern Iraq, that would translate to getting a solid buy-in from the vast majority of the Tribal Sheiks and using them against the AQ crowd.

The enemy in Iraq has shown little interest in a hearts and minds strategy. He seeks to dominate through intimidation in much the same way Saddam did when he was in power. Those facts argue in favor of calling him a terrorist. But what ever you call him he is still a raider.

Here I have to disagree with you completely. Many of the insurgents are following their cultural codes. Check out an article by LtC Craig T. Trebilcock called The Seven Pillars of Modern Iraq in the February issue of Army Magazine. While I don't agree with everything he says (I think he is way too far over the edge in many of his comments), he does capture many of the realities of tribal life.

Domination through a "balance of terror" is nothing new. This is standard practice in many pastoralist cultures, and has certainly been the practice in many Western cultures as well. I think you are making a categorical error if you equate "Hearts and Minds" with "Bunnies and Light" .

Marc