Recognizing Distinct Types of Insurgency - "Know the type of conflict you are in."

[slapout9]

The 1979 siege at Mecca was about Islam not being pure enough....was it not? So radical Islamist wanted to take over what I call mainstream Islam and convert it a pure form of Islam. At least in their eyes. So that seems like a religious insurgency to me. It was not about governance as much as about Islam IMO.

[Bill Moore]

I would agree. Revolution does not fit into the definition of war, as long as it is fought within the same group. Not sure how to define it.

Of course you can't define it, and you can't define war. You think war is this, and Bob can think I it is something else, and I can think it is completely something different. Slap thinks it includes fraud, which seems a bit of a stretch, but since doctrinal explanations no longer (if they ever did) address reality they have little utility outside of their legal context. In the U.S., and in the U.S. only, the government has certain war time powers it can leverage if war is actually declared.

We could all sit around a table drinking beer and find we actually agree with each other on many things, but we each call these things different names. This isn't a minor issue, the military can't be a true profession until it develops a lexicon that the entire force recognizes AND it adapts to the world as it really is. Falling back on Thucydides, Clausewitz, Mao, etc. is a start, but history didn't stop.

For the time being I'm sticking with the definition of war in JP-1, but even that falls short.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Of course you can't define it, and you can't define war. You think war is this, and Bob can think I it is something else, and I can think it is completely something different. Slap thinks it includes fraud, which seems a bit of a stretch, but since doctrinal explanations no longer (if they ever did) address reality they have little utility outside of their legal context. In the U.S., and in the U.S. only, the government has certain war time powers it can leverage if war is actually declared.

We could all sit around a table drinking beer and find we actually agree with each other on many things, but we each call these things different names. This isn't a minor issue, the military can't be a true profession until it develops a lexicon that the entire force recognizes AND it adapts to the world as it really is. Falling back on Thucydides, Clausewitz, Mao, etc. is a start, but history didn't stop.

For the time being I'm sticking with the definition of war in JP-1, but even that falls short.

But Bill, this is the root of the problem. Until we can decide on a definition we are going no where. The JP-1 defines war as a socially sanctioned violence to achieve a political purpose. By this definition, when O'Rielly claimed that he was in a war zone during violent street protest in Argentina where the people were seeking relief for political grievances, he was absolutely right - he was in the middle of a war.

Until we define our terms we will simply talk past one another.

My biggest problem with most of these discussions is that they are largely merely philosophical. There is very little "science" in Military Science. It is mostly history - arguing about this conflict or that. It never digs down to find a common root in all war.

This is why I feel that, before we start this conversation on how to categorize wars, we need to properly define war. Perhaps that is another thread, but I still feel it is important.

... while I am ranting, there is also precious little science in Political Science, so tying our definition to the political realm is only marginally helpful, and largely useless in insurgencies and revolutions.

[Bill Moore]

But Bill, this is the root of the problem. Until we can decide on a definition we are going no where. The JP-1 defines war as a socially sanctioned violence to achieve a political purpose. By this definition, when O'Rielly claimed that he was in a war zone during violent street protest in Argentina where the people were seeking relief for political grievances, he was absolutely right - he was in the middle of a war.

Until we define our terms we will simply talk past one another.

My biggest problem with most of these discussions is that they are largely merely philosophical. There is very little "science" in Military Science. It is mostly history - arguing about this conflict or that. It never digs down to find a common root in all war.

This is why I feel that, before we start this conversation on how to categorize wars, we need to properly define war. Perhaps that is another thread, but I still feel it is important.

... while I am ranting, there is also precious little science in Political Science, so tying our definition to the political realm is only marginally helpful, and largely useless in insurgencies and revolutions.

So true, I think economic interests are political interests, so I don't see the disconnect with some TCNs conducting warfare (character of war) to achieve their criminal objectives. When people tell me this is war and this isn't with a high degree of confidence, I ask them a simple question. What is war? To date no one has been able to provide an answer. When they tell me war is an extension of politics by other means, then I ask them what is politics? No answer, unless it is someone clinging to the past assuming only states possess political policies.

Doctrine states warfare is subordinate to war, if that is true, then insurgencies, rebellions, and yes high levels of violent crime directed against a government and its citizens are all war. I don't have a problem calling them war, as you stated it is the character of warfare in a particular instance we need to differentiate. As long we cling to Cold War definitions of insurgencies and pretending criminal activity is always separate we will continue to ill-define the problem and develop inappropriate solutions.

As long as we forget what we're trying to achieve using war/warfare/military activities because we're overly concerned with underlying issues we can't change in most cases we'll continue to spin in circles. I think you and Bob tend to dismiss why do we fight? What are our objectives? How do we achieve them? The job of war isn't to make everyone love each other around the world, if it is, then we'll be broke (we are already) in a few more years.

[Bob's World]

Bill, our challenge is not due to a misunderstanding of "the job of war" - our challenge is that we too often apply a war solution to problems that are not war.

We then write off the resultant failures to any number of situations beyond our control, such as "complexity" or "ideology" or lack of political will.

But our PME institutions are full of the keepers of doctrinal inertia; think tanks are full of those paid to define reasons for success or failure in terms favorable to those who pay their bills, and politicians of every ilk are as unlikely to claim responsibility for failure as they are apt to claim credit for success.

The forces of strategic inertia are powerful.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Gentlemen,

as an aside, and for a little levity, I am happy to report that the foibles of doctrine writers exist even in the hallowed halls of academia. In this case, the question is where war comes from.


" Is it natural for humans to make war? Is organised violence between rival political groups an inevitable outcome of the human condition? Some scholars believe the answer is yes, but new research suggests not.


A study of tribal societies that live by hunting and foraging has found that war is an alien concept and not, as some academics have suggested, an innate feature of so-called “primitive people”.The findings have re-opened a bitter academic dispute over whether war is a relatively recent phenomenon invented by “civilised” societies over the past few thousand years, or a much older part of human nature. In other words, is war an ancient and chronic condition that helped to shape humanity over many hundreds of thousands of years?
The idea is that war is the result of an evolutionary ancient predisposition that humans may have inherited in their genetic makeup as long ago as about 7 million years, when we last shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees – who also wage a kind of war between themselves.


However, two anthropologists believe this is a myth and have now produced evidence to show it. Douglas Fry and Patrik Soderberg [umlaut over o] of Abo Akademi University in Vasa, Finland, studied 148 violently lethal incidents documented by anthropologists working among 21 mobile bands of hunter-gatherer societies, which some scholars have suggested as a template for studying how humans lived for more than 99.9 per cent of human history, before the invention of agriculture about 10,000 years ago.


They found that only a tiny minority of violent deaths come close to being defined as acts of war. Most the violence was perpetrated by one individual against another and usually involved personal grudges involving women or stealing.About 85 per cent of the deaths involved killers and victims who belonged to the same social group, and about two thirds of all the violent deaths could be attributed to family feuds, disputes over wives, accidents or “legal” executions, the researchers found. “When we looked at all the violent events about 55 per cent of them involved one person killing another. That’s not war. When we looked at group conflicts, the typical pattern was feuds between families and revenge killings, which is not war either,” said Dr Fry."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...t-8718069.html


I must admit that I am not a fan of Dr Fry and his theories. He has skewed the data so that deaths as a result of feuds and raids between tribal groups are not wars. I like to kid that he used the Correlates of War standards, at least 100 deaths - which would be the complete extermination of an average hunter-gatherer tribe.

[Bob's World]

So, most violence is not war. I am comfortable with that.

My primary thesis I am offering here is that political conflict within a single system of governance is fundamentally different in nature than conflict between two or more systems of governance. That conflicts between fit within how we have come to think of "war," but that those within really do not fit that paradigm.

I believe that when we make this distinction and stop waging war against these internal political conflicts that we will be far more successful in resolving the same.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I think you and Bob tend to dismiss why do we fight? What are our objectives? How do we achieve them? The job of war isn't to make everyone love each other around the world, if it is, then we'll be broke (we are already) in a few more years.

Bill, I don't dimiss why we fight, but we "fight" over a lot of things - I just beleive that what a group goes to war over is not always the same as why two individuals fight. To me, war is not simply a really big brawl. It is a collective social act that is morally sanctioned by the larger group in order to defend something that group values so much that it is willing to send its sons and daughters off to die for it.

I believe that if we can key in on that motivation, on why we fight, then we can begin to see solutions to all that "complexity."

[slapout9]

Bill, I don't dimiss why we fight, but we "fight" over a lot of things - I just believe that what a group goes to war over is not always the same as why two individuals fight. To me, war is not simply a really big brawl. It is a collective social act that is morally sanctioned by the larger group in order to defend something that group values so much that it is willing to send its sons and daughters off to die for it.

I believe that if we can key in on that motivation, on why we fight, then we can begin to see solutions to all that "complexity."

I have been saying that since I have been here.....you must know the motive. So did Galula for that matter. In fact he really made a good point when he said that what defines an insurgency (as oppposed to some other violent action) is the cause (motive).

[slapout9]

Slap thinks it includes fraud, which seems a bit of a stretch, but since doctrinal explanations no longer (if they ever did) address reality they have little utility outside of their legal context.

Bill,
I do believe that and so did Galula and so most LE people I know because we see gangs use it everyday. They firmly believe that if you get what you want by lying that is the way to go, if not then use violence.

[davidbfpo]

I think this book review fits here, as it refers to a governing elite amidst an insurgency and a 'border war(s)' chaning course:

The regime had an efficient army and a repressive police force. Insurgency was minimal, despite hostile frontline states across the borders in Angola, Zimbabwe and Mozambique. Trade sanctions had reinforced Pretoria in its self-righteous isolation, incidentally ridding the country of foreign profit-takers. South Africa’s economy was Africa’s strongest. The sports boycott was irritating, but not remotely such as to induce Afrikaners to capitulate to a black majority....I could see no reason why this should change any time soon. The whites were entrenched....Then suddenly in 1989-91 came a revolution.

What happened next was equally crucial. De Klerk had a Damascene conversion, boldly and emphatically turning to reform. He realised that apartheid was losing intellectual and moral sway over the white minority. He could see the game was up. So-called “separate development” was administrative chaos, with black immigrants pouring into the lucrative mining sector and spreading south into the Cape Province. Most whites sensed change had to come, but they were terrified of what it might mean.

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...renwick-review

[Bob's World]

The 1979 siege at Mecca was about Islam not being pure enough....was it not? So radical Islamist wanted to take over what I call mainstream Islam and convert it a pure form of Islam. At least in their eyes. So that seems like a religious insurgency to me. It was not about governance as much as about Islam IMO.

Slap, I read a pretty good book on this a couple years ago, and as I recall without going back to do the research, the '79 movement in KSA that took the Holy Mosque in Mecca (and the separate but parallel movement to expel the Americans from Iran) were both extremely political in nature.

In the Kingdom the leader of the movement employed an Islamic ideology, and identified a young man who had the characteristics described in the Koran as prophet who would liberate the people to serve as the central selling point in his movement. The people who believed political change was necessary to that point had been deterred by law, state power, etc. But with the coming of this prophet they believed it was time to act. Power manipulation for political purpose, wrapped in religion. But at the heart, it was a political challenge and revolutionary non-war.

[slapout9]

Slap, I read a pretty good book on this a couple years ago, and as I recall without going back to do the research, the '79 movement in KSA that took the Holy Mosque in Mecca (and the separate but parallel movement to expel the Americans from Iran) were both extremely political in nature.

In the Kingdom the leader of the movement employed an Islamic ideology, and identified a young man who had the characteristics described in the Koran as prophet who would liberate the people to serve as the central selling point in his movement. The people who believed political change was necessary to that point had been deterred by law, state power, etc. But with the coming of this prophet they believed it was time to act. Power manipulation for political purpose, wrapped in religion. But at the heart, it was a political challenge and revolutionary non-war.

Bob,
No it wasn't and that is the point. Islam is primary to politics, bad governance was going to be "fixed" by good religion. I would say all belief systems are primary to governance that is where we get into trouble. Good politics doesn't counter God only a Religious reformation can do that.