Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 96

Thread: Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    32

    Default Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

    Sir,

    Thank you for your patients with my rambling on this topic. I believe based on what I have learned from the war and in my studies that there are fundamental and significant differences between insurgents and terrorists.

    Not only in their motives and their Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTPs) but in our military response to each--how we fight. However, some experts will quickly say that insurgency and terrorism are inextricably linked. In doing so however, they would fail to recognize the consequence of this association. In my studies, the two are only loosely connected but often each gains tremendous momentum when the two are used interchangeably. I also believe that when we misrepresent one as the other, we do damage to our effort. It is, in our terms "a combat multiplyier" for the enemy in its most synergistic form. For example, when I associate what is happening in Iraq to a religious Jihad or a struggle against demoracracy, it gives the appearance of unification of one large group against another, and of a large scale almost global struggle. The risk is that we incite globally--“Beware the zealous leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a fervor, for this is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by hatred, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am, Caesar.” Quote from Julius Caesar.

    I think a new thread would be helpful to me too. We should define the two.

    Here are some of the things that I believe are the salient differences between the two:

    Insurgencies are conditions in which the insurgents spawn within a population because the government will not, or simply cannot provide the appropriate governance for life (law, order, security, water, electricity, sanitation, etc. This population can be likened to the criminal gang and organized crime elements more then freedom fighters or terrorists. Their cause is never an ideology or idealistic dogma, (it is more primal and basic) and therefore they will have the propensity to ebb and flow based on the need of the day and the targets of opportunity. In other words, their cause can change based on the situation. Today insurgents might attack American fighters in response to the surge, tomorrow they might strike a Mosque in a form of sectarian retaliation, the next day it is the Iraq security forces. Their targets are most often tactical. Their goal has nothing to do with winning although they don't mind the enemies (plural) failing--they will fight anyone who tries to bring order. They win if the struggle is protracted because it is from the pure chaos that they get their Utility. 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. However, because they are not driven by a single ideology, members can quickly apostatize. This can be used as a COIN tool, and their members can be reformed.

    The insurgents in Iraq are decentralized in their operations, are local within a small territorial range (kilometers from their home) and recruit their fighters from local talent. Here is an equation that predicts the probable distance from an IED strike to the insurgents' home base. P(b) = A * e**-Bx Where A and B are empirical constants determined from the enemy data sets. It is an exponential decay function. As the distance X from the insurgent’s base increases, the less probable that a single group committed it. It is believed that 90% of all insurgent attacks will occur within 15 km of their base.

    The Terrorists on the other hand, have very much centralized command and control (decentralized in their execution) and will operate hundred up to thousands of kilometers from their command and control base of operations.
    Their struggle is based on the terrorist’s commitment to violence as a small group (usually ranging in group size from few to less than one-hundred- fifty "card carrying" members) in order to intimidate a population or government to cause their perceived fundamental change. The group size is limited by command, control and confidentiality capabilities. Their cause is always ideological and political, based on group-actualization rather than self-serving. In other words, their belief is that what they do is for the "Public good"--acting on behalf of "all." It is aimed at the establishment, not decapitated states. Terrorism however enjoys the freedom to organize and operate unabated in failed states. Finally, rarely will anyone ever develop a counter-terrorist strategy to change this group’s apostasy--it is analogous to trying to change Rush Limbaugh from the right to the left--it simply cannot be done. Their beliefs are so deeply held that they appear to the world as radical and extreme. Terrorists may or may not be highly trained and their operations are top driven and centralized from the command and control elements. Their targets are always strategic. Because the terrorists act on behalf of all, they will never engage in grass roots fighting unless cornered into it. As a result, in my "Opinion," we have very few terrorist cells living in Iraq. Although the insurgents hope that we think differently.

    I think a new string would be very helpful.

  2. #2
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I think a new string would be very helpful.
    Done sir. Your original post in the Philippines thread remains, and this is a copy to begin further discussion.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GPaulus View Post
    Sir,

    I believe based on what I have learned from the war and in my studies that there are fundamental and significant differences between insurgents and terrorists.

    Not only in their motives and their Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTPs) but in our military response to each--how we fight.

    I think a new string would be very helpful.
    I think that you can't differentiate between insurgents and terrorists in that way.

    Insurgency is in my opinion the overall term and encompasses all members of an insurgency movement. That is the Leaders, Theorists, Financers, Sponsors, Helpers, Computer-Experts, Media-Experts, Technicians, Bomb-Makers, Spies, ..... and of course the actual fighters. Among the fighters you may then find the terrorists, simply because Terror is a useful method insurgents use to achieve their goals.

    This makes it also clear, that by military means alone you can't win against an insurgency movement, because it's made of more than just fighters and terrorists.

    The fight against terrorists is therefore just a part in the fight against insurgents.

    There are, of course, other terrorists as well, which are not related to an insurgency and which also can't be directly compared with insurgents one on one.

  4. #4
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default Agreed Bruz

    I agree with Bruz Lee. My own experiences in Lebanon, Sudan, Turkey, and Rwanda as well as time as a regional and terrorist analyst makes any attempt to draw clear lines between terrorists and insurgents. Terrorism and terrorist are labels with variety of meanings attached. They are also a means or a tactic. And they are also a statement of intent.

    Insurgent is somewhat better defined and perhaps clearer in the intent of its meaning. Even so there are great debates and I am sure you have heard them about whether or not someone is an iinsurgent or a wave of violence is an insurgency.

    Because of the connotations and simultaneous spin associated with the term terrorists, I have over the years shifted to the word extremist.

    Best

    Tom

  5. #5
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default Agree ... with some caveats

    Hi Folks,

    In general, I agree with Tom and Bruz, but I do have a few cavils or caveats on that agreement (hey, I'm an academic, what did you expect? ).

    First off, how be if we drop the personal forms and look at the group forms: "insurgency" and "terrorism". This makes it easier to examine since individuals may be affiliated with more than one group form.

    Wikipedia defines an insurgency as "An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority." The OED defines insurgency as "The quality or state of being insurgent; the tendency to rise in revolt", an insurgent as "One who rises in revolt against constituted authority; a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent." and an "insurgence" as "The action of rising against authority; a rising, revolt." (personally, I always preferred the OED).

    So, the core relational meanings of the term are:
    1. a "rise", "uprising", "revolt", "rebellion"
    2. against "authority"; defined as "an established civil or political authority" in Wikipedia and as "constituted authority" or just "authority" in the OED.
    3. with the implication of conflict; defined as armed revolt in wikepedia, undefined in the OED.


    The relationship is between two groups, #s 1 & 2 and takes the form of 3.

    Let's look at the groups in this little social drama. A "rise", "uprising", "revolt", "rebellion" against "authority" (of some type). The implication of this is fairly obvious, group 1 lacks "authority" that is held by group 2. As such, an "insurgency" implies a redefinition of "authority" between the two groups.

    Let's look at the relationship (#3) next. In its broadest form, the OED definitions, it does not state the type of authority other than "constituted". This means that the authority relationship is, in all probability, housed in some type of institution: political, military, religious, academic, familial, etc.

    As to the specific tactics of such an insurgency, the OED only uses the phrase "a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent". Now, the definition of "belligerent" is crucial to this - "A nation, party, or person waging regular war (recognized by the law of nations)" [n] and "Waging or carrying on regular recognized war; actually engaged in hostilities" [adj]. Now this certainly implies armed revolt, but I would also point out that conflictual metaphors are common in many non-kinetic conflicts. More importantly, note the use of terms such as "regular war" and "regular recognized war". This implies the existence of rules of combat, and these rules can exist only within institutions. For example,our current "Rules of Warfare" derive from the Treaty of Westphalia. Notice, however, that all institutions have specific rules of "conflict" (broadly construed), and hat all the OED definitions really say is that an insurgency is characterized by tactics that stand outside of the "accepted" (socially contracted) rules of conflict within the institution.

    Okay, let's shift to "Terrorism":

    • from Wikipedia - "Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals."
    • from the OED - "A system of terror", "Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the ‘Terror’ (1793-4)", "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized".


    Terrorism is a specific "social contract" or system. The term was originally coined in France - "terrorisme (1798 in Dict. Acad., Suppl.)" - and referred to the system put into place by Robespierre. It is systemic and aimed by one group against another - originally by a government against its citizens, later by any group advocating political or ideological goals and choosing to use these tactics. Originally, this tactic took place within a social contract, but that seems to have dropped from the definition fairly quickly.

    So, back to definitions: an "insurgency" is an attempt to redefine power / authority relationships within an institution, while "terrorism" is a specific tactic or system employed by one group against another to achieve specificf ends.

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  6. #6
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    And when a bad guy pulls out his weapon to participate in an RPG party against a wayward convoy one day, and then drives an explosive-laden Caprice Classic into a crowded market the next (under directives from a centralized cmd) he can be both, depending upon interpretation.

    Semantics aside, they are both bad, and both need to be dispatched with careful precision.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
    ...they are both bad, and both need to be dispatched with careful precision.
    If you are fighting a simple terrorist without popular backing than you are right.

    If you are talking about a terrorist-fighter within an insurgency movement it can be better not to kill him (i think that is what you mean by "dispatching") but to get him over to your side. Than you get the most valuable Actionable Intelligence you can get and you may be able to drain the insurgency.

  8. #8
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    I would also add a geographic component to the discussion. Insurgents tend to operate in (or near) the region they are rising against/in, while terrorists (in the classic sense) are trans-national. They operate where and when they can. The contention that terrorists have a centralized command structure is also something of a misnomer. They can and do operate as independent units without a central command aside from a shared ideology, while insurgents can have a central command structure.

    It's also important to mark a difference between a terrorist and terrorist-like methods. Insurgencies can use terrorism as a weapon, but they are not classic terrorists in my view. Insurgents have a geographic focus or base of operations, while terrorists can, but do not have to.

    I think the confusion arises because terrorism is a tool as well as a group naming methodology. One can use terroristic tactics without being a terrorist, and this applies to insurgents and organized crime elements alike.

    There are a number of other differences as well, but I'd need to organize my thoughts a bit better. Perhaps the biggest (to me) lies in the realm of legitimacy or perceived legitimacy. Insurgents often have (or can present themselves to have) legitimate and justified complaints against the regime existing in their region (usually tied to concrete and achievable changes or goals), while a terrorist group may have a political/ideological "goal" or "statement," but its objectives are usually Utopian or unachievable. By the second generation, most groups use these "goals" simply to justify more killing and bloodshed, and they become more nebulous and unattainable. Tom's use of extremist is good, but that term also does not convey the level of violence that a fully mature terrorist group can and will use.

    Because of the political nature of many terrorist groups, you will often find disenchanted members joining an insurgency, or even providing training to such groups.

  9. #9
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Folks,

    'fraid we can't "leave the semantics aside" JC . "Semantics" = "meaning", and if we don't have some solid, agreed upon meanings, then we might as well just say "let's kill all the bad guys" (yeah, I know, Bubba says "YEAH!"). Besides that, the more accurate we are in our terms, the more likely we are to be able to use them to produce accurate models that will generate a "win" situation. "Semantics is your FRIEND!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    I would also add a geographic component to the discussion. Insurgents tend to operate in (or near) the region they are rising against/in, while terrorists (in the classic sense) are trans-national. They operate where and when they can. The contention that terrorists have a centralized command structure is also something of a misnomer. They can and do operate as independent units without a central command aside from a shared ideology, while insurgents can have a central command structure.
    Generally I'd agree with you on this, Steve. I think that it may be importan to note that what bis really important is the "authority relationship" that is the basis for an insurgency. Certainly, in the past, this has meant that insurgencies had to operate geographically but, would suggest, that not all of them do now what with rapid global communications. A "community of practice" can exist globally and so, in my mind, can an insurgency.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    It's also important to mark a difference between a terrorist and terrorist-like methods. Insurgencies can use terrorism as a weapon, but they are not classic terrorists in my view. Insurgents have a geographic focus or base of operations, while terrorists can, but do not have to.

    I think the confusion arises because terrorism is a tool as well as a group naming methodology. One can use terroristic tactics without being a terrorist, and this applies to insurgents and organized crime elements alike.
    Absolutely!

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    There are a number of other differences as well, but I'd need to organize my thoughts a bit better. Perhaps the biggest (to me) lies in the realm of legitimacy or perceived legitimacy. Insurgents often have (or can present themselves to have) legitimate and justified complaints against the regime existing in their region (usually tied to concrete and achievable changes or goals), while a terrorist group may have a political/ideological "goal" or "statement," but its objectives are usually Utopian or unachievable. By the second generation, most groups use these "goals" simply to justify more killing and bloodshed, and they become more nebulous and unattainable. Tom's use of extremist is good, but that term also does not convey the level of violence that a fully mature terrorist group can and will use.

    Because of the political nature of many terrorist groups, you will often find disenchanted members joining an insurgency, or even providing training to such groups.
    I'll look forward to those thoughts

    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  10. #10
    Council Member Stan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    3,817

    Default Insurgents and Terrorists

    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

  11. #11
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default Slightly more organized...

    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...

  12. #12
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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.

  13. #13
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    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
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  14. #14
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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.

  15. #15
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Steve

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    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".

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    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
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  16. #16
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    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.

  17. #17
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default T Word

    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
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 01-25-2007 at 05:28 PM.

  18. #18
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    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.

  19. #19
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Tom,

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    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
    Last edited by Tom Odom; 01-25-2007 at 05:28 PM.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  20. #20
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Steve,

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Blair View Post
    What I think Marc and I are grappling with is a more suitable (to our minds, at least) way of categorizing things.
    Certainly, although I am a touch more ambitious - I want to go beyond a taxonomy and into a descriptive and, hopefully, predictive model.


    Marc
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •