Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

[Stan]

I would also add a geographic component to the discussion.

I can better relate to Steve's recent posting, but Bruz, Marc, and Tom hit home equally well.

I can comment on insurgents from an African and later Estonian point of view.

Where Tom would end up for his last tour in paradise, there were basically two factions, and the outcome was fairly clear. But in Zaire, there were more than 400 tribes. Even though only a handful were more powerful, they still were unable to convice the rest to go along. Intimidation or religious belief was not nearly enough. The money was worthless, so that's out. Exactly what's left ?

In Estonia the insurgents are all now deep into politics. Much like Zaire, the parties and beliefs vary to the point, that it makes the whole process to complicated and only a civil war would break the tie.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but if you have 400 factions that all have a different view on things, how then would say one of the 400 create an effective uprising (insurgency), if the other 399 didn't care ?

It is geography as Steve put so well. Perhaps the Arab insurgents use the Americans to gain momentum and create a stir. That won't work where I am now as well as in Sub-Sahara. The Africans hated the Belg and French, but you still could not get all 400 tribes to agree.

Regards, Stan

[Steve Blair]

There are, in my view, some basic differences between a terrorist and an insurgent. As mentioned before, to my way of thinking the first of these is geography. I also view both terms as neutral in the great scheme of things. There can, from some perspectives, be “good” terrorists and “bad” insurgents, as well as the reverse.

I don't deny the impact of “global community” thought with this, but the relationship between “struggle with authority” (however that may be defined) and a group based on a particular tribe or local issue is to me at the heart of an insurgency. Once it begins leaving local borders, and takes on the trappings of the “global community,” it may well cross into a trans-national insurgency or terrorism. To be more precise, it may become a trans-national insurgent group or terrorist group. I make a distinction between terrorist tactics and methods (terrorism) and groups that practice terrorism.

The base of a typical insurgency remains geographic. While they may solicit outside support and assistance, their goals remain reasonably local (nationalized land holdings, revoking nationalized land holdings, correction of perceived or real social wrongs, and so on). If outsiders can help attain those goals, or distract the local “powers that be,” an insurgent group will use them. I would also argue that while some insurgent groups may have a loose command and control network (although this is not always the case), they still feel responsible to a fixed goal or vision. This is also something that can be easily measured (like the goals mentioned before). Tribal insurgencies, as Stan points out, may have issues getting off the ground, but each tribe remains fairly fixed in its goals and objectives. By this measure, groups like ETA may actually straddle the fence between terrorists and insurgents.

This geographic focus also places, to my view, some limits on the methods an insurgency can employ. These limits are determined more by their base constituency or recruiting pool, and not so much by outside considerations. For example, an insurgency would lose momentum if it continually committed atrocities against its own core population (this is, of course, assuming that the insurgency is not being controlled by others and used for their own ends...my thought here is the Viet Cong by about 1965, although the transition could have taken place earlier). Once they take that step, they become more committed to terrorist methods and the basic profile changes.

Terrorists, on the other hand, have goals and objectives that cannot be easily measured or attained (bringing Ireland under a Socialist/Marxist/whatever government, for example). For them geography is a consideration but not a focus. Also, these groups tend to spin out of control over time, becoming much more hazy in their goals and more violent in their methods. They become, in short, addicted to the killing (their own methods) and less focused on what those methods are supposed to achieve. Some insurgencies (like the ETA, the Khmer Rouge, and others) transition into terrorist groups as their goals become less clear and their methods more violent and less focused.

To me, a trans-national insurgency runs the very real risk of becoming a terrorist group because they lose that geographic focus. One of the first signs of a terrorist group spinning out of control is the conversion to a more hazy political or socio-political goal. “Global Community”-type insurgencies would be especially vulnerable to this, as their leadership would be dispersed and more open to influence by more radical (or extremist) elements. And once they start shedding their self-imposed limits, they run the real risk of falling into the classic terrorist spiral of violence.

Just some slightly more organized thoughts...

[Steve Blair]

I would further propose that a great deal of what we see now is a more evolved form of terrorism, considering the base that the recruiting efforts are tapping into. Iraq is, for the most part (in my view) a variety of insurgency in terms of the geographic components and social objectives of most groups involved, but it is also vulnerable to the terrorist sway I mentioned earlier.

[marct]

You know, Steve, I still have that caveat about geography . I would argue that what we are seeing, in the broader scope of the GWOT is really a global insurgency against the particular weltanscauung established by the Treaty of Westphalia. I would certainly agree that they are using terrorist tactics, but I would classify the MB and its intellectual children as insurgents.

In Iraq, I would tend to agree with you that it is a variety of insurgency. On that note, however, I think that we need to create a new term to cover what we have been calling "criminal enterprises". The main reason for creating a new term is that calling something "criminal" means that there must be a generally accepted legal code, and that isn't the case in many failed or failing states. I would further suggest that a "criminal enterprise" is, in actuality, a tactical option in the same way as terrorism is a tactical option. So, if we are going to "build a better mousetrap" (model), then we should clearly distinguish betwen tactics and group motivations.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Marc,

I do believe in the construct of what I call a trans-national insurgency, but I also feel that once you start spreading past certain geographic areas you cross from insurgency into terrorism. We may just agree to disagree here...

Criminal enterprises...now there's an interesting one. Terrorist groups use these sorts of activities to finance their operations, so the two clearly mix. I do feel that there is a difference between an organized criminal activity (such as the Mafia or larger cartels) and smaller ones that crop up in unstable locations. Perhaps "organized crime" might be a better term for the "criminal enterprises" in disorganized territories, with the enterprise term limited to the criminal tactics and not the organization.

[marct]

Hi Steve

I do believe in the construct of what I call a trans-national insurgency, but I also feel that once you start spreading past certain geographic areas you cross from insurgency into terrorism. We may just agree to disagree here...

Quite possibly . Let me give you what I consider to be another example of a trans-national insurgency (I like the term): the anti-globalization movement. I think that an argument could also be made that many of the diasporic communities that have come into existence as a result of political conflict in their homelands may, at times, also act as trans-national insurgencies (TNIs), even though hey may have a geographic focus.

Hmmm, maybe that's a way to distinguish them: their focus - geographic, ideological, etc.

Criminal enterprises...now there's an interesting one. Terrorist groups use these sorts of activities to finance their operations, so the two clearly mix.

That's why I was identifying it as a "tactic", rather than an "aim".

I do feel that there is a difference between an organized criminal activity (such as the Mafia or larger cartels) and smaller ones that crop up in unstable locations. Perhaps "organized crime" might be a better term for the "criminal enterprises" in disorganized territories, with the enterprise term limited to the criminal tactics and not the organization.

I think that there is a difference; probably something to do with the degree of social integration of the "criminal organization". After all, the Mafia and gangs in general are really quite an accepted and integrated part of US society, whether anyone likes it or not <wry grin>. In effect, in a stable society, these groups fulfill functional requirements, i.e. they meet the needs, of a segment of the population even though the society in general has specifically said that these needs may not be met legally in that form. Usually, this is in the form of actions / needs that society has defined as "immoral".

In disorganized territories, I think we are dealing with something quite different - more of an attempt to both fulfill needs and, also, to carve out a moral sanction from the general society to do so.

Maybe we should start categorizing these groups in the following way:

• Aim or goal - what they hope to achieve
• Focus - geographic, ideological, "religious", economic, etc.
• Tactical preference - e.g. terrorism, "criminal activity", IO, etc.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

Hmmm, maybe that's a way to distinguish them: their focus - geographic, ideological, etc.

I think that there is a difference; probably something to do with the degree of social integration of the "criminal organization". After all, the Mafia and gangs in general are really quite an accepted and integrated part of US society, whether anyone likes it or not <wry grin>. In effect, in a stable society, these groups fulfill functional requirements, i.e. they meet the needs, of a segment of the population even though the society in general has specifically said that these needs may not be met legally in that form. Usually, this is in the form of actions / needs that society has defined as "immoral".

In disorganized territories, I think we are dealing with something quite different - more of an attempt to both fulfill needs and, also, to carve out a moral sanction from the general society to do so.

Maybe we should start categorizing these groups in the following way:

• Aim or goal - what they hope to achieve
• Focus - geographic, ideological, "religious", economic, etc.
• Tactical preference - e.g. terrorism, "criminal activity", IO, etc.

Marc

That was my breakdown with the idea of a TNI: once it leaves a specific geographic region (or geographic focus) it then becomes trans-national. I did have the anti-globalization folks in mind, but there are other examples (MB in a sense). One thing with a TNI - it becomes more susceptible to loosing its focused identity and concentrating on means (terrorism) more than ends (its original goals). At that point I really feel it transitions into a terrorist group.

With organized crime and the like, it may be best to think of "criminal enterprises" in an unstable region as more tactics than movements (at least initially). Some of them will clearly be attempts to make ends meet or obtain services and goods that might be otherwise unavailable, but in other cases it will be insurgent and/or terrorist groups using the activity for their own purposes (be it financial or logistics).

I like your list. It puts into words the mental methods I was using to put this construct together.

[Tom Odom]

Steve

This is exactly why it keep it as simple as possible when using the T-word.

Criminal enterprises...now there's an interesting one. Terrorist groups use these sorts of activities to finance their operations, so the two clearly mix.

Insurgent groups rob banks. So do extremists (AKA Terrorists). Insurgent groups use drug production to finance activities. Extremists do so as well.

As for the Global War on Terrorism, I (and I guess Marc as well) see it as a global COIN regardless of what you call the opposition. If we try and put it as a Global War on Terrorists (versus Terrorism) we end up fighting the insurgent and not the insurgency. To wit in a strategic COIN, we concentrate on lethal strike operations --which may play well inside the US--against high value targets and we neglect the global COIN objective of that neutral or passive Muslim majority centered in the even greater neutral or passive global majority.

Best

Tom

[Steve Blair]

Tom,

One of the reasons I don't like the use of terrorism with GWOT is the fact that terrorism was around before the rise of Muslim extremists, and they will be there after they're gone. Linking the two has the danger of stripping attention away from groups and individuals who are immune to COIN and only susceptible to direct action of some sort or another. COIN can work very well with Muslims, but it will have no impact on RAF/IRA-type groups.

What I think Marc and I are grappling with is a more suitable (to our minds, at least) way of categorizing things.

[marct]

Hi Tom,

Insurgent groups rob banks. So do extremists (AKA Terrorists). Insurgent groups use drug production to finance activities. Extremists do so as well.

That's why I'm trying to categorize these as tactics, or preffered tactics.

As for the Global War on Terrorism, I (and I guess Marc as well) see it as a global COIN regardless of what you call the opposition. If we try and put it as a Global War on Terrorists (versus Terrorism) we end up fighting the insurgent and not the insurgency. To wit in a strategic COIN, we concentrate on lethal strike operations --which may play well inside the US--against high value targets and we neglect the global COIN objective of that neutral or passive Muslim majority centered in the even greater neutral or passive global majority.

Exactly! Part of the reason I get so picky on wording is that certain words gain semantic accretions (emotional and referential stuff that's associated with them) in the popular press. This, in turn, influences our ability to conduct global COIN. I've said it before i a number of threads, but I think it's worth repeating: this war is an ideological fight first and foremost.

Marc

[Thepartisan]

Al Qaeda is the CIA's tool.

The Iraqi resistance does not and will not associate with them.

That being said, i think the real terrorists are the state terrorist imperialist occupiers.

Long live the resistance.

[SWCAdmin]

Al Qaeda is the CIA's tool.

The Iraqi resistance does not and will not associate with them.

That being said, i think the real terrorists are the state terrorist imperialist occupiers.

Long live the resistance.

That's an opinion we don't get around here every day.
Line 1 - that's just wacky.
Line 2 - increasingly so! Anything more to say? Maybe in this forum?
Line 3 - where you sit is often where you stand
Line 4 - see #3. But one day when you're not resisting, what will you do?

[Thepartisan]

When my grandfather fought and defeated the occupation of our country, he lived out the rest of his life in peace.
What's really wacky is your ignore the connections between the CIA and Osama bin ladin, just as you ignore the connections between the CIA and Saddam. Go watch your hate minute winston.

Where i stand is against injustice, whether it's near my seat or not. Thankyou.

[RTK]

When my grandfather fought and defeated the occupation of our country, he lived out the rest of his life in peace.
What's really wacky is your ignore the connections between the CIA and Osama bin ladin, just as you ignore the connections between the CIA and Saddam. Go watch your hate minute winston.

Where i stand is against injustice, whether it's near my seat or not. Thankyou.

I'm going to say the same thing to you as I have to others:

Your postings take on more meaning when we know where you're coming from. Update your profile and introduce yourself in the appropriate thread.

Until then you sound like a college student who is gunning for a history or drama major.