Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

[GPaulus]

I'm with the Canadian...I have no idea where this definition of insurgents is going sir. Maybe it's just not getting through my thick head, but are you really arguing that insurgents do not have political goals?

Yes that is what is going around in my head--insurgents (at least in Iraq)are apolitical. I believe that insurgents have motives but that their motives are much more primal. I believe that others like freedom fighters, terrorist and others have more of self actualizing goals whereas the insurgents are much more fundamental in their needs. This population can be likened to the criminal gang and organized crime elements more then conventional war fighters or terrorists. The insurgency in Iraq is composed of primarily men 18-40. They tend to be local within a very small territorial range Km from the homes, and recruit their fighters from local talent. When the group gets too large (100+), there may be internal violence, mass killings and rival rifts as members compete for upward mobility. Their “Cause to Die For” is the failure of the government to meet the most basic levels of life. They almost always spawn from decapitated states especially if the levels of basic services do not improve with time. Their cause is never an ideology or idealistic dogma, and therefore they will have the propensity to ebb and flow based on the need of the day and the targets of opportunity. Because they are not driven by a single ideology, members can quickly apostatize. I believe that Insurgency warfare is not politically, ethnically or religiously motivated. Notice how this flies in the face of the conventional war fighter’s paradigm proposed by Clausewitz, “War is the extension of politics by other means.” If a word could describe insurgents, it is self-serving—power, money, lawlessness, food, freedom from oppression, survival, etc., and once spawned, their aim is protractedness; it is not about winning. Simply stated, insurgencies are protracted because that provides the most utility to the insurgents; they are not protracted because it is an insurgency. Insurgents don’t have a goal of winning although they would not mind seeing their enemy fail. They win if the struggle continues to gain momentum and they draw others into the fray—that breeds chaos. In addition, and contrary to popular belief, insurgencies are not religiously motivated; in as much as “they” want to present the appearance that they are religious in nature. This is in direct conflict with the traditional paradigm that the war fighter is accustomed. It is important to recognize that religion is ideological; an insurgency is not. This is not to say that religion and religious rhetoric is not important--it is to the insurgents because it gives the appearance of broad support, and it quickly organizes society for them into “us against them.” They gain if they breed hatred and distrust among other religious groups: Sunni, Shiites, Muslims and Christians. It is an attempt to give the appearance of unification of one large group against another of a large scale struggle. In some cases they will also turn the ends against the middle if that is the only way to disrupt recovery. After serving in the war that is the only thing that makes sense to me regarding the events in Iraq. You have a right to call me on it as I try to piece together my experiences. I saw insurgency targets change from government, to religious, to security, to military, American Journalists, to tribal targets--this tells me that they are attacking for the purpose of instability and not strategic and/or political.

[kaur]

GPaulus said:

I believe that others like freedom fighters, terrorist and others have more of self actualizing goals whereas the insurgents are much more fundamental in their needs.

GPaulus, what do you think about Jewish armed organisations (for example Lehi) that fought for independent Israel. If you find out facts about assassination of Lord Moyne, Cairo-Haifa train bombings, assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte etc. Those acts were clearly targeted against civilians. Where those acts not very fundamental. I think they were. Were those acts terrorist acts?

GPaulus, to define what is fundamental and what is not, you need to define what is politics. Bard O'Neill in his book "Insrugency and Terrorism" defined (if I remember correctly) it as process which decides who gets what, when, how, where and why. Those are very fundamental questions and I think that those are issues that terrorists are fighting for, also.

Terrorism is very often 1. step in insurgency strategy, which aim is to gather support, make propaganda (to recruit members, to inform national, international oppinion etc). This tactics is very often choice of weaker side because of security problems. Organisation has to live in hostile environment which is crowded with hostile security organisations. It is very hard to organise conventional batallion on the first day of your activity. Bla-bla-bla, i need to go back to work now

[jcustis]

I saw insurgency targets change from government, to religious, to security, to military, American Journalists, to tribal targets--this tells me that they are attacking for the purpose of instability and not strategic and/or political.

I regret that I did not see this same sort of transition across my time there. Perhaps Rob Thornton or RTK could weigh in with their observations. I saw the targets often become a target as a matter of timing (as they presented themselves), or often being attacked simultaneously.

I'm not sure I would classify former regime loyalists (FRLs) as lacking a political bent, or that they strive solely for instability. They may, for a limited time, seek instability for the purpose of reaching other goals, but I have a hard time seeing them perpetuating violence just because they can.

power, money, lawlessness, food, freedom from oppression, survival, etc., and once spawned, their aim is protractedness

I'd offer that freedom from oppression is itself an ideology (political), and the FRLs hold on to the belief that the best form of government for Iraq is neither Shi'a-dominated, coalition influenced, or Kurd-dominated. That drives them to attack these other formations, in addition to your more primal incidents, like the righting-or-wrongs, or honor attacks.