Good idea! My thinking is that it is the intent of the attack that differentiates between a legitimate military action and a terrorist attack. Thus intent is important in terrorist v. insurgent in the same way that the Common Law tradition differentiates between murder and manslaughter.Originally Posted by Steve Blair
It is right to learn, even from one's enemies
Ovid
And on we go....
My position tends to run a little away from that, as you might be able to tell from some of my earlier posts on this thread....
I lean more toward result as opposed to intent. Many terrorist groups either spin off from existing insurgencies or piggyback existing groups. They may announce that their "intent" is to strike a blow against the oppressive government, but instead of killing a policeman they blow up a school. Granted, that's an extreme example, but it ties closer to my main theory about terrorist groups. Over time (some sooner than later) they become more obsessed with "results" in terms of spectacular damage or body counts and less concerned with real goals or political objectives. This was the basis of the question I posed earlier that went unanswered by someone who has managed to get themselves in a position where they cannot answer....
The other reason I think it's important to be able to distinguish between the two (legal considerations aside) is that they require different tactics. Blurring or mistaking the two can have potentially catastrophic COIN repercussions, IMO.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
In WWII the Allies were trying to stop factories in occupied France from producing war material for the German army. They bombed the factory a number of times, but found that it was still producing significant amounts of war material.
To finally reduce factory output to zero they bombed the workers homes near the factory. The thinking was that if you destroyed the worker's housing then they would no longer be able to work at the factory.
The intent was to stop the factory's output. They did that by bombing the workers. This resulted in destroyed homes and civilian deaths. Using your definition this would have been a terrorist attack. I have some difficulty accepting that line of reasoning.
It is right to learn, even from one's enemies
Ovid
Not necessarily. Targeting means of production (to include the workers) is a much different thing from blowing up a school bus or commercial airliner to protest the working conditions of those same workers. Consider that the average terrorist group practices very little in the way of target discrimination (often going for the easiest targets available...no matter what they are). A terrorist group would have set off a firebomb in a market nearby during peak shopping hours to protest the working conditions rather than launch a bomber raid (which has a fair amount of early warning) against the factory or nearby housing to stop production. They would also continue attacking the area as long as they could produce casualties.
Last edited by Steve Blair; 06-04-2007 at 08:54 PM. Reason: Corrected wording
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
I agree whole heartedly with this. However I don't think it is limited to COIN operations. I suspect that the person who lost a loved one in a hospital that was bombed during a conventional operation would any less upset than if the attack came from a car bomb.
It is just in COIN we can see the impacts and the secondary and tertiary effects up close and personal.
It is right to learn, even from one's enemies
Ovid
Agreed. What I was referring to are tactics on the ground. For example, winning over the hearts and minds of third-generation terrorists (think German RAF, Japanese Red Army, some parts of the PLO/IRA) just isn't possible. Negotiation isn't really an option with most of them, because their demands have become so other-worldly that they cannot possibly be met. On the other hand, insurgents can be negotiated with and so on. So a heavy approach with them can be a mistake, just as a light approach with terrorists can have dangerous consequences.
Just examples, mind, but it's more where my thinking goes with this issue. Certainly there are hangers-on within terrorist groups, and there are also dedicated insurgents that cannot be negotiated with or diverted from their goals.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
I agree with your post #93. The total environment needs to be such that acts of political violence are unusual and generate a police response. A subdued approach that minimizes violence will, in the end, do more to eliminate the "environment of insurgency" than any other approach. At least any approach we are willing to take.
I would like to remind you that tactics in the air are tactics on the ground. You separate them at your own risk.
Last edited by Mondor; 06-04-2007 at 09:05 PM. Reason: Correct post number
It is right to learn, even from one's enemies
Ovid
Poor choice of words on my part. By "tactics on the ground" I refer to tactics within the entire area of operations, to include air, land, and sea/riverine. "Tactics in theater" might have been a better choice.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks