Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 96

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

  1. #41
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GPaulus View Post
    I believe that the insurgents' fight is not a political, religious or ideological manifesto like the media leads us to believe. As a result, the insurgency in Iraq wins if the struggle is protracted. They want to keep the intensity up for as long as they can using every method available. And against anyone who strives to bring order--the local marketer who refuses to withhold produce from the market, the religious leader calling for peace, the ISFs, the Military, anyone who oposes them getting their primal needs for power, money...met.
    Any insurgency is either political, ideological, religious, or mixture of all three, GP. Your assertion about terrorists in an earlier paragraph is also flawed, as it does not reflect the changes that a terrorist group undergoes as it matures. Some may justify their actions using your categories, but at the end of the day the majority of the true terrorist groups do not care a wit about such things. They become more interested in "payback" and making big headlines through body counts. That's a matter of historical record, not speculation.

    It's possible you're confusing the incorrect MSM use of "insurgency" (which covers a variety of activities) with a real insurgency. True insurgents have political goals, be they the creation of their own living space or ensuring participation for their specific ethnic group or religion.

    And Tom, I agree to a degree with your observations about some historians but would also point out that the "instant history" school is deeply flawed when it comes to method and practice. The best balance comes from a combination of the two types, which isn't always possible.

  2. #42
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi GP,

    [quote=GPaulus;9071]The fact that "All" human behavior ihas a motive and is motivated by one thing and one thing only "Self-interest" does not make all struggles the same.[/qote]

    What a cold worldview! Why do you take the obviously unsupportable position that all human behaviour is based on self interest?

    Quote Originally Posted by GPaulus View Post
    The major difference as I see it between the insurgency in Iraq, and other acts such as rebellions, civil war, freedom fighting and terrorists, and the reason that I content insurgents are apolitical is that the insurgents are all about them--WIFM. They want protractedness because that provides Utility for them, they want lawlessness because that provides utility--money, power, wealth, control for them.
    Jeremy Bentham would, I suspect, have been quite disturbed by this assertion. Outside of your blatant misunderstanding of the principles of Utilitarianism, you seem to think that self interest cannot also be "political". I wuld remind you of a rather popular saying from the 60's and 70's - "The personal is political".

    You are also making a categorical error in conflating all insurgents into a singular unit which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, prove of any utility in combating the multiple insurgencies that we are dealing with. If we follow your line of reasoning, we can see the illogic - power and control disappear in a wasteland of death since the "insurgents" have killed off everyone, and wealth and money are likewise irrelevant since there is nothing left to purchase.

    Quote Originally Posted by GPaulus View Post
    Other struggles such as rebellions, terrorist operations, etc believe that their cause is a "Public Good" and that they are doing it for the good of all --selfactualizing, ideological, altruistic--selfless regard and acting for the well-being of others. These struggles are much more of an ideological struggle. Consider this difference--Using the Maslow Hierarchy --the terrorists operate at the Self-actualizing level (Political, Regime Change, Religious Freedom, selfgovernance) whereas the Insurgency, at least in Iraq, are at the Physiological level--food, water, money, selfcontrol, lawlessness.
    If you will return to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and reread it, you will discover that self control and lawlessness are not listed in it at the basic levels. "Self control" is part of the process of self actualization.

    Somehow or other, and I have no idea where it comes from, you have inverted the commonly accepted meanings of the term "terrorist" and "insurgent". How can you define an insurgency as categorically different from a rebellion to the point of mutual exclusion? Let's go back to some basic definitions from the OED that I quoted in an earlier post in this thread:

    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."
    Quote Originally Posted by GPaulus View Post
    I believe that the insurgents' fight is not a political, religious or ideological manifesto like the media leads us to believe. As a result, the insurgency in Iraq wins if the struggle is protracted. They want to keep the intensity up for as long as they can using every method available. And against anyone who strives to bring order--the local marketer who refuses to withhold produce from the market, the religious leader calling for peace, the ISFs, the Military, anyone who oposes them getting their primal needs for power, money...met.
    You are, of course, free to believe whatever you wish. That is, after all, one of the core values of the Anglo culture complex.

    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/

  3. #43
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Violation of Tom Odoms Rule #1

    Quote Originally Posted by GPaulus View Post
    The fact that "All" human behavior has a motive and is motivated by one thing and one thing only "Self-interest" does not make all struggles the same.
    Sir, I disagree again. People are born Tabula Rosa (blank slate) as they develop the ability to process reality they may or may not develop the ability to see to their own rational self interest. The primary process for which one learns about this reality processing or personal operating philosophy is family,friends,school and initial exposure or non exposure to religion.

    Which leads me to Tom's first rule. "They think different then we do"

  4. #44
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Slap,

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Sir, I disagree again. People are born Tabula Rosa (blank slate) as they develop the ability to process reality they may or may not develop the ability to see to their own rational self interest. The primary process for which one learns about this reality processing or personal operating philosophy is family,friends,school and initial exposure or non exposure to religion.
    Not sure I'd agree with you on the tabula rasa argument, but I definitely do about the socio-cultural factors.

    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/

  5. #45
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    32

    Default

    [QUOTE=marct;9077]Hi GP,

    Quote Originally Posted by GPaulus View Post
    The fact that "All" human behavior ihas a motive and is motivated by one thing and one thing only "Self-interest" does not make all struggles the same.[/qote]

    What a cold worldview! Why do you take the obviously unsupportable position that all human behaviour is based on self interest?



    Jeremy Bentham would, I suspect, have been quite disturbed by this assertion. Outside of your blatant misunderstanding of the principles of Utilitarianism, you seem to think that self interest cannot also be "political". I wuld remind you of a rather popular saying from the 60's and 70's - "The personal is political".


    Marc
    Where I am going with my argument is that the way to beat an insurgency is to create a "Cause" that is greater than their "cause to die for." This group of individuals at least in Iraq can apostatize if we create the conditions to meet their primal needs. (by the way you will not be able to topple those at the highest level of the insurgency pyramid, they will have to be killed but below those most powerful, they will apostatise) You see, I firmly believe that all human behavior is motivated by selfinterest and certainly self interest could be selfish interests or even the opposite --even altruistic interest. Selfinterest is in the eye of the beholder, it could be political, ideological, religious, good or evil, or even selfishness like doing it for the money, power ... The terrorists are in general altruistic--willing to die or kill but doing it for the public good and in believing that their actions are really in the interest of others--but their actions are, like all human actions, motivated by and satisfy their selfinterest (as defined in their eyes). And by the way, you cannot change the terrorist's beliefs--in other words, you cannot create a cause to live for that is greater then their cause to die for--terrorists have to be killed, they cannot apostatize. This fact is why we hear so much about the religious Jihadist, religious extremists and why Terrorists are considered radicals--these conditions are very much at the actualization levels and they mirror belief systems that are so deeply held as to be extreme. Religion, democracy are selfactualizing concepts too. The Insurgents in Iraq are not acting at that level. When you are drinking from the same trough as your cow, you are not thinking about selfactualizing concepts. They will ebb and flow because their motives are selfish--it is all about them. These guys are locals, operating within KM of their own homes and there are many different groups. When I used the word utility, I did not mean Utilitarian. What I meant is in the purest definition of Utility--the quality or property of being useful--in other words, this insurgency in Iraq meets their primal need for food, money to acquire worth, power to control their neighborhood, self-security etc. and therefore, they only want the lawlessness to continue. The insurgency wants protractedness because they will ride the lawlessness as long as is possible. Their goal is not to win and that is why you never hear of an insurgency that wins--that is not their goal. You see if they were to win, then they would be responsible for caring for others, establishing a government, meeting needs of the local population, providing services and in providing Hope. Thank you for letting me discuss my radical ideas.
    Last edited by GPaulus; 01-31-2007 at 04:20 AM. Reason: typo

  6. #46
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    And by the way, you cannot change the terrorist's beliefs--in other words, you cannot create a cause to live for that is greater then their cause to die for--terrorists have to be killed, they cannot apostatize.
    The Rhodesians were quick to refer to their opponents as terrorists, and there is irrefutable evidence that specialized formations within the Rhodesian Army did change "terrorist" beliefs. Counter-Insurgency in Rhodesia, by J. K. Cilliers (which I think is within the SW Library) provides a smidgeon of detail, but sufficient evidence. Point of order here though...Notice that the Cilliers work uses the title term counter-insurgency, yet I said that rhodesians referred to the bad guys as terrorists (in admittedly a generic way)? My point is that the hair can only be split but so far.

    When I used the word utility, I did not mean Utilitarian. What I meant is in the purest definition of Utility--the quality or property of being useful--in other words, this insurgency in Iraq meets their primal need for food, money to acquire worth, power to control their neighborhood, self-security etc. and therefore, they only want the lawlessness to continue.
    I think that is quite a stretch sir. I had the chance to look a hardcore insurgent in the eyes after we captured him on the Fallujah peninsula. When I say he was hardcore, he was what some Iraqis like to call the Mujaheddin, or "The muj" by grunts. Long hair, a dirty beard, and piercing eyes. He wasn't gaining anything out of shooting RPGs at us from the nearby palm groves, other than being run into the ground after several days of running wild. Same goes for many bad guys picked up in the wake of the fight in Fallujah proper. Many of them were disillusioned foreigners who clearly identified themselves as being insurgents, but kinda lost their way when they were dropped off downtown with no money, no food, and no weapon. After reading the writing on the wall and plenty of leaflets, several of them seemed more than happy to become a patron of our DETFACs

    The insurgency wants protractedness because they will ride the lawlessness as long as is possible. Their goal is not to win and that is why you never hear of an insurgency that wins--that is not their goal. You see if they were to win, then they would be responsible for caring for others, establishing a government, meeting needs of the local population, providing services and in providing Hope. Thank you for letting me discuss my radical ideas.
    Have to go back to Rhodesia/Zimbabwe on this point...ZANU/ZANLA can be considered to have "won" Rhodesia, in certain regards, if for no other reason than Mugabe has been in power since what, 1981? He became responsible for the caring of others, but in his blood thirst to slay the golden-egg laying goose, he has run that beautiful country into the ground through ignorance, ineptitude, and flat out ass-hattery.

    I could go on for a while in this vein, but I'll stop here. I guess what I'm mumbling about sir is that your ideas, while perhaps radical, really aren't getting us anywhere closer to being more surgical with a terrorist, or an insurgent.

    EDITED TO ADD: As my parting shot to this thread, I think we often forget that an insurgent or terrorist may have no motive at all to what he does, beyond the simple fact that we are in his backyard, looking at his women, and hogging the roads. I call it the Red Dawn effect, and it's terribly powerful. Or maybe it's the simple fact that Americans seem to enjoy porn, and have no qualms about it.
    Last edited by jcustis; 01-31-2007 at 05:55 AM.

  7. #47
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    [QUOTE=GPaulus;9101]
    Quote Originally Posted by marct View Post
    Hi GP,
    The terrorists are in general altruistic--willing to die or kill but doing it for the public good and in believing that their actions are really in the interest of others--but their actions are, like all human actions, motivated by and satisfy their selfinterest (as defined in their eyes). And by the way, you cannot change the terrorist's beliefs--in other words, you cannot create a cause to live for that is greater then their cause to die for--terrorists have to be killed, they cannot apostatize. This fact is why we hear so much about the religious Jihadist, religious extremists and why Terrorists are considered radicals--these conditions are very much at the actualization levels and they mirror belief systems that are so deeply held as to be extreme. Religion, democracy are selfactualizing concepts too. The Insurgents in Iraq are not acting at that level. When you are drinking from the same trough as your cow, you are not thinking about selfactualizing concepts. They will ebb and flow because their motives are selfish--it is all about them. These guys are locals, operating within KM of their own homes and there are many different groups. When I used the word utility, I did not mean Utilitarian. What I meant is in the purest definition of Utility--the quality or property of being useful--in other words, this insurgency in Iraq meets their primal need for food, money to acquire worth, power to control their neighborhood, self-security etc. and therefore, they only want the lawlessness to continue. The insurgency wants protractedness because they will ride the lawlessness as long as is possible. Their goal is not to win and that is why you never hear of an insurgency that wins--that is not their goal. You see if they were to win, then they would be responsible for caring for others, establishing a government, meeting needs of the local population, providing services and in providing Hope. Thank you for letting me discuss my radical ideas.
    These are not so much radical ideas as they are poorly informed. I would say that Cuba's insurgency won, as did our own, that of India, and any number of others throughout history.

    I think you confuse terrorists and insurgents. Many of the ideals you ascribe to insurgents are in fact more typical of terrorist groups. But, as Marc has pointed out, you are free to do so. But you must provide more than circular logic, sir, if you hope to win others over to your radical ideas.

  8. #48
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default Self interst and heroism

    Most people awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor ignored their own self interest in order to serve a larger cause. In fact many in this country can not comprehend why our troops ignore their own self interest and volunteer for combat.

    While the jihadis may believe they serve their self interest by punching their ticket for Paradise, delusional beliefs do not make it so.

  9. #49
    Registered User Maphu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southeast Asia
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Most people awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor ignored their own self interest in order to serve a larger cause. In fact many in this country can not comprehend why our troops ignore their own self interest and volunteer for combat.

    While the jihadis may believe they serve their self interest by punching their ticket for Paradise, delusional beliefs do not make it so.
    Perhaps I'm wrong, but to me it looks like you're saying that those who sacrifice their lives for us are heroes but those who sacrifice their lives for the opposition are but fools.

    Is that meant to imply that Muslims are less human than others? I think we need to try and learn more about what motivates the enemy than simply writing him off as a fool. I've been down that road before.

  10. #50
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    8

    Default Kilcullen via Jedburgh on same topic

    SWC Thread Center of Gravity Construct #82 has Jedburg link to Kilcullen paper that kind of pulls together much of what you all have discussed, very educationally for me. Especially noted that terrorists and insurgents in modern warfare can and do operate in ways that make it important to know, if possible, which one you've got in your sights. But also that the buggers may switch back and forth, depending on the strategic state of play. My first post, beg pardon if someone made this point earlier and I've missed it.

  11. #51
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default This is pretty scary

    Gentlemen,

    With all due respect to the years of expertise gained through academia and muddy boots field work, I find it both alarming and refreshing we can't agree on to define insurgents and terrorists. Scary because I think it paralyzes us to some degree, as there are clearly different strategies for countering insurgents and terrorists. We all know one size doesn't fit all.

    Refreshing in the sense that inability to agree may hopefully lead us to disregard the sometimes futile effort of trying to categorize the enemy, and instead more accurately describe the threat without the legacy terms and baggage that goes with them.

    Let's face it, in the government these terms are tied to mandates, laws, and funding issues. If it is terrorism, then this organization owns it (and the funding that goes with it), if it an insurgency, then that one, if criminal then another one. We have a way of defining problems that tends to fit the interest of our organization, not so much our national security.

  12. #52
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default A terorist by any other name...

    Hi Bill,

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    With all due respect to the years of expertise gained through academia and muddy boots field work, I find it both alarming and refreshing we can't agree on to define insurgents and terrorists. Scary because I think it paralyzes us to some degree, as there are clearly different strategies for countering insurgents and terrorists. We all know one size doesn't fit all.

    Refreshing in the sense that inability to agree may hopefully lead us to disregard the sometimes futile effort of trying to categorize the enemy, and instead more accurately describe the threat without the legacy terms and baggage that goes with them.
    I know that Steve has been working on a think piece coming out of this thread, and I'm looking forward to it (hint, hint).

    Bill, I think that your comment has captured the core difficulty with taxonomies, which is how the terms "terrorist" and "insurgent" tend to be used. By relying on definitions that conflate goals and operational tactics, I think we are locked into a reactive model that is poorly adapted to current realities.

    Possibly more dangerous, at least in the long term, is that each evocation of a particular toxon, say "terrorist", will tend to also evoke its polar opposite, say "freedom fighter". In situations where these terms are highly politically charged, and you also have a polarized political scene, this means that you inevitably generate support for any group labeled "terrorist" simply because the people labeling it that are opposed politically. It's one of those "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" pieces of "logic".

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Let's face it, in the government these terms are tied to mandates, laws, and funding issues. If it is terrorism, then this organization owns it (and the funding that goes with it), if it an insurgency, then that one, if criminal then another one. We have a way of defining problems that tends to fit the interest of our organization, not so much our national security.
    This is one of the reasons I am arguing for a matrix organization in the GCOIN environment. Put another way, we are dealing with trans-national, non-state actors so why are our response units based on states (see this thread)? Country teams make a certain amount of sense when most players are nation states or alliances of nation states, but little sense when dealing with non-state actors.

    Bill, you are quite right in saying that "We have a way of defining problems that tends to fit the interest of our organization", and one way to get around that problem is to create a new institutional mindset and organizational forms to go with it. Why, for example, should membership in an operational or "project" team be restricted to Americans? For example, we can be fairly certain that radical Islamist groups are "fund raising" through defrauding government tax programs. The EU has already noted this publicly, and the Canadian government is also looking at it. The operational tactics of this type of defrauding are very similar and are operating through trans-national networks and, in my opinion, our responses should be as well.

    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/

  13. #53
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Already being done

    Marc, to a certain extent this is already being done. In Alabama criminal gangs,terrorist,hate groups are being pooled under the title "Security Threat Groups". Task forces are often organized a long the lines of what you call Matix management. Some of the most successful that I have seen personally are in the area of domestic violence/stalking cases. We used to have the DA who would prosecute the case plus a victim advocate and the primary investigator all assigned to the same prosecution team and would work through to conviction.

  14. #54
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default Raiding strategy

    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.

  15. #55
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default raider?

    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.

  16. #56
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Merv Benson View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Merv Benson View Post
    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
    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/

  17. #57
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Sir I agree with your distinction between the two and as a new member I will be getting my feet wet with all the input by others. It has been my exp. in Afghanistan that there are few Terrorists and more insurgents, but what I have seen or understand is that the few Terror cells, control these insurgents. These uneducated misguided insurgents will shoot an RPG or dig in an IED for a few thousand Pakistan Rupees with no reason behind it, except to get money. They have no ideals and will go to the person that is paying the most. So what do we do target the Terrorists or the insurgents? I think it is a double edge sword, because if you kill the terrorists, more will fill the ranks because of beliefs and ideals. As for the insurgents they will lose heart because they have no real stake in the struggle but you will not get at the head or the money. I think if you have a solid IO campaign and specific targets you could stop the local recruitment and cut the terrorists pool of warm bodies off and then they will show themselves in desperation in order to discredit the government and or coalition. If I had to pick I would go after the insurgents and conduct a grass roots campaign getting into the villages and establishing relationships with these peoples families and friends.

  18. #58
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi fthoya,

    Quote Originally Posted by fthoya View Post
    It has been my exp. in Afghanistan that there are few Terrorists and more insurgents, but what I have seen or understand is that the few Terror cells, control these insurgents.
    That certainly matches what I had heard from other sources, and it's one of thereasons why I think we have to be careful with our labels .

    Quote Originally Posted by fthoya View Post
    These uneducated misguided insurgents will shoot an RPG or dig in an IED for a few thousand Pakistan Rupees with no reason behind it, except to get money. They have no ideals and will go to the person that is paying the most.
    Then the "simplest", and by that I don't mean either cheap or easy, solution is to rebuild their economy. I used to work with a friend who grew up in the camps around Peshawar and, from what she told me, you could easily hire an army of "insurgents" as long as you had enough cash and a decent cadre. Honestly, I think the best way to change this is to rework the entire refugee camp system (and I promise I won't start in on my UNHCR soapbox ).

    Quote Originally Posted by fthoya View Post
    So what do we do target the Terrorists or the insurgents? I think it is a double edge sword, because if you kill the terrorists, more will fill the ranks because of beliefs and ideals. As for the insurgents they will lose heart because they have no real stake in the struggle but you will not get at the head or the money. I think if you have a solid IO campaign and specific targets you could stop the local recruitment and cut the terrorists pool of warm bodies off and then they will show themselves in desperation in order to discredit the government and or coalition. If I had to pick I would go after the insurgents and conduct a grass roots campaign getting into the villages and establishing relationships with these peoples families and friends.
    In general, I would agree. The problem, as I see i in the case of Afghanistan, is that a lot of the source pool is in Pakistan, both Pakistan proper and the border territories. Since Pakistan is an "ally", it is a touch tricky to send the troops into the areas where they should be going (e.g. N & S. Waziristan). I think some of these problems could be solved if Musharef would return those provinces to Afghanistan, but I doubt he would.

    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/

  19. #59
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Washington, Texas
    Posts
    305

    Default Raiding strategies

    Aggressors chose a raiding strategy because they are too weak to chose a more effective strategy. Some raiders are in it for the booty and some are in it for bigger prizes like the people or the real estate.

    Using a force to space ratio adequate to cut off enemy communications and movement to contact has been used often. The Europeans eventually repulsed the Viking raids by building strategic fortifications along routes used by the raiders. Alexander used a similar strategy in Afghanistan.

    Eastern Europe is an interesting example of an effective counter insurgency strategy by the Soviets. They infiltrated organizations that were attempting to resist their rule as well as the spy services in the west that were attempting to send aid and men to help the resistance. The history of US and UK infiltration into Eastern Europe is filled with failure. The people sent in were either caught and killed or turned in almost every case.

    I am surprised that so little study has been done in the most effective counter insurgency operation in recent history.

  20. #60
    Council Member jcustis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    I am surprised that so little study has been done in the most effective counter insurgency operation in recent history.
    Maybe it was because the communists attempted to take religion out of the equation, and our current fight is rife with it. In all seriousness, I think it's reasonable speculation.

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
  •