Insurgoterrmilitia Ideogangs

[J Wolfsberger]

From a system point of view, you're defining the dimensions that describe the insurgency "space." The missing element that jumps out at me is temporality - they evolve over time. Would it make sense to change them around a little bit to:

informal/simple ------------ formal/complex
nonideological --------------------- ideological
constituency serving ------------------- self-serving
heterogeneous ----------------- homogenous
limited goals ----------------- revolutionary goals
loosely bound ------------------ tightly bound
non-threatening ------------- most threatening
less violent--------------------more violent
autonomous ----------------- dependent
unlinked ---------------------------- linked

which seems to me to progress from early stage to later stage.

[Ron Humphrey]

Considering that most of the arguments have been made already I just have one question.

I have seen this premise of deciding whether or not something " is " an insurgency.

In truth does this really matter so much as whether it is something which can or should be addressed in context with its circumstances.

Many a times are there movements for or against of varying degrees; should they always be addressed or are there occasions where regardless they will work themselves out under current conditions.

[selil]

Considering that most of the arguments have been made already I just have one question.

I have seen this premise of deciding whether or not something " is " an insurgency.

In truth does this really matter so much as whether it is something which can or should be addressed in context with its circumstances.

Many a times are there movements for or against of varying degrees; should they always be addressed or are there occasions where regardless they will work themselves out under current conditions.

From what I've been reading this month it is becoming imperative that we decide what an insurgency is and how to describe. I've read about the wobblies as a workers insurgency, about the AFL-CIO as a workers insurgency too (totally different methods same space). I'm now reading about a variety of anarchistic groups that are considered insurgencies. The only holistic element spanning the groups so far is they disagreed with the ruling class within their time (not even violence is consistent).

[Ken White]

"From what I've been reading this month it is becoming imperative that we decide what an insurgency is and how to describe.,.."

Seems like there are myriad definitions out there, none are really wrong and most resist categorization.

[selil]

Seems like there are myriad definitions out there, none are really wrong and most resist categorization.

Quite simply because law is applied to terms and punishments are determined by the terms applied to particular crimes. An insurgent can both be a terrorist and quite different yet the terms in some cases are used as synonyms. Further when such lack of discretion occurs law has a tendency to not be meticulous in determining the applicability of punishment based on terms. An American union organizer should not be classified as an insurgent and deemed fair game for military action, nor should an Iraqi union organizer be labeled an insurgent because their actions are not aligned with United States interests.

I think that insurgent as a synonym for terrorist is the largest issue.A good definition of either would be good for informing national debate.

[Ken White]

Terrorism, OTOH is (nowadays) and this seems pretty clear to me; LINK.

The two are not synonymous in my mind and do not appear to be to Merriam Webster; LINK, LINK.

Nor can I see how either Union organizer would get that insurgent label. Discounting my opinion, it seems the only way to get the determination you want is have someone pass a law and Congress's record in that sphere isn't too hot, so I think that's case of 'be careful what you wish for.'

I'm never sure what National debate means. Do we all argue a position on the web? Write letters to the Editor? Not being snide or snarky, honest -- I truly do not understand what's meant by the phrase in a nation this large, this diverse and this contentious which has a representative government. How is this national debate conducted and by whom?

[selil]

I'm never sure what National debate means. Do we all argue a position on the web? Write letters to the Editor? Not being snide or snarky, honest -- I truly do not understand what's meant by the phrase in a nation this large, this diverse and this contentious which has a representative government. How is this national debate conducted and by whom?

Let me succinctly explain where I'm coming from 32 books 16 weeks on sociology dealing with everything from the wobblies to woodstock, from criminal incarceration to the meaning of violence.

Any mental diarrhea should be expunged by fire hose as I attempt to place my brain on cruise. Integrating new knowledge never hurt this much. I blame MarcT and the evil that my professors represent. Two communists and a right wing whacko... Well they're nice people at least..

[Ken White]

as it should be rather than as it is.

That, BTW, is not a slam, just a sad note that I share the goal but reluctantly accept that it is highly unlikely to be achieved. Most of our national debates many years ago were noted for the amount of corn and rye whiskey present in all venues and the number of knives and pistols that got waved about. We're a little more civilized now -- but not a whole lot...

Oh -- and they are nice people, Marc for sure and the others probably!

[Geoff]

So when did guerilla warfare change to insurgency - or is it still something different, if so what are the differences?

[Ken White]

according to some.

According to others, the difference is more than semantic as a guerilla can operate with or against a government or an occupier (The French Resistance in WW II) -- some call them irregular forces to introduce more semanticism or romanticism -- whereas an insurgent operates only against the government in the nation of interest (The OAS in France and Algeria during the Algerian Insurrection) generally with the object of regime change. Were that not so, he or she would not be insurging.

Insurgents and guerillas can use terrorism as a tactic in which case they become insurgents and guerillas who use terrorism as a tactic and may logically be called terrorists by some though they still remain insurgents and guerillas for all practical and (I am not a Lawyer) I suspect legal purposes.

Terrorists, OTOH use terror (i.e the threat of physical harm or the actual performance of acts that cause such harm) to coerce a group or nation (can be either) to do or not do certain things. Terrorists may or may not be insurgents or guerillas. If they are NOT sanctioned by a nation state, they are also likely to be called criminals as well. Unless Reuter's is reporting it -- then they become freedom fighters or something.

[Geoff]

Thanks Ken,

My problem is that we seem to be assigning lots of labels to theses people - Freedom Fighters, Insurgent, Terrorist, Resistance etc. They are bandied around by the press - as you said quite nicely.

I think that the press applies the flashy labels to hit our buttons and convey the prevailing view - do the Iranians really view Hamas as evil? This only serves to muddy the waters as we try to place opposing forces into neat little boxes rather, rather than tackling the key issues:

1. What is thei motivation?
2. Where is their support?
3. How are they supplied?
4. How do they recruit?

Once we start to address ourselves to these issues, progress should occur - at the end of the day if it growls and has claws; I don't debate it it is a bear or a squirrel - I make sure that I am safe

[Ken White]

They excel at muddying the water; not intentionally just through ignorance in too many cases.

Re: your points; I'd add to 'em a bit:

1. What is their motivation and can we counter it, if so how?
2. Where is their support and can we institute a divorce?
3. How are they supplied and can we interdict?
4. How do they recruit and what alternatives can we offer?

...and submit that, generally, two of the four will be accomplished with only slight difficulty and the other two will be elusive.

The thing that'll keep us alert is that which two will be accomplished will vary from war to war and likely will vary within a given war over time. If we can crack the two easy items (whichever they may be) and get a good handle on any third item -- then the bad guys (catch all term, NY Times approved) will be operating at only about 25% capacity and are more likely to let us get to a position where a satisfactory outcome can be obtained -- there is no victory in a counterinsurgency in the normal sense.

One can add more items or combine for a smaller number but the process remains the same; there will be no 100% solution (and there need not be); identify the critical factors for the particular war, further identify the ones that you can most easily counter and work to get the preponderance going your way. All while getting shot at ...

Timurlane had it easy...

[Geoff]

Ken , I like the additions, maybe we armchair generals can get a job fixing the world after all.

One can add more items or combine for a smaller number but the process remains the same; there will be no 100% solution (and there need not be); identify the critical factors for the particular war, further identify the ones that you can most easily counter and work to get the preponderance going your way. All while getting shot at ...

(sorry not quite figured the quote system yet)

Is this not a fault of the military for not setting the expectation? Of course the politicians manage the message, but don't we need a few brave members of the brass to dissent - and show that wars are not easy and that a terrorist war is a long haul project - not in and out on a Saturday night?

[William F. Owen]

So when did guerilla warfare change to insurgency - or is it still something different, if so what are the differences?

Excellent point! I am far happier using the term Guerilla. It is abstract enough to be highly accurate and useful!

I see no purpose in defining them other than to differentiate them from armed forces who are legally answerable to a national command authority. = they have an internationally recognised legal standing.

Insurgents are, after all, criminals. Criminals have subsets based on the offence, eg- rapists and burglars. Criminal gangs are defined by what they do. EG - Drug Cartel, or Car Thieves.

I see no problem with have guerillas and then having subsets. Narco-guerillas, Bandits, Pirates, Religious fanatics etc.

...on the other hand, I am in a minority on this board, in that I see no useful purpose in studying insurgency as a discrete and separate form of conflict.

[selil]

To make matters worse I was just reading about insurgent ideas (sic).... I hate sociology it's so messy. Give me technology any day.

As to pirates and brigands can we agree one operates via the water and the other via land and that narc suggest drugs? Giving us terrains to work from?

Differentiation for the purpose of lawful combatant is how the original argument (and military tribunals) began. As Ken White eloquently pointed out The French Resistance would have been an "insurgency" and likely not afforded legal standing as combatants, and any advisory staff considered spies.

As to whether insurgency is a discrete form of conflict Mr. Owen from something I read last night that seemed to ring true "Informed dissent is the strongest motivator of excellence" - Cass Sunstein.

[marct]

Actually, a lot of the definitional problem comes out of basic worldviews. Let me toss out some of my own (very rough) definitions so Sam can pull them apart .

Terrorist: One who practices the tactic of "terrorism"; a tactic designed to induce fear and terror in a population and, by doing so, achieve their aims.

Guerrilla warfare: a "Grand Tactic/Strategy" that relies on a "strike and fade" or "raiding" mode of combat.

Insurgent: one who rebels against the "legal" government which claims sovereignty over them.

Criminal: one who breaks the laws of the "legal" government which claims sovereignty over them.

Legal Government: a social group that has managed to impose control over a larger group and to regularize and routinize that control in such a manner that other such entities recognize it as the "legal government" of the larger group.

In this set of definitions, there is overlap, but not too much.

Marc

[selil]

Let me toss out some of my own (very rough) definitions so Sam can pull them apart .

Terrorist: One who practices the tactic of "terrorism"; a tactic designed to induce fear and terror in a population and, by doing so, achieve their aims.

Ahhh.... golly I won't pull them apart but I might suggest this.

Terrorist: One who practices a tactic designed to induce unreasoning fear in a population and, by doing so, achieve their aims.

I don't disagree with the original intent, but just trying to remove the self referential element in the definition.

I'm sure I'm missing some larger meaning of the first definition (like through carnage or asynchronous destruction). Having read the nine-or-twenty definitions used by the government this one seems so tidy.

[marct]

I could live with that one, but I think that the fear is actually reasoning fear, at least when done properly (e.g. Machiavelli and the Prince).

Marc

[selil]

I could live with that one, but I think that the fear is actually reasoning fear, at least when done properly (e.g. Machiavelli and the Prince).

Marc

Oooh good point. "You have reason to fear that which you know will come true..." or something like that?

[Ken White]

Said Geoff:

"Is this not a fault of the military for not setting the expectation? Of course the politicians manage the message, but don't we need a few brave members of the brass to dissent - and show that wars are not easy and that a terrorist war is a long haul project - not in and out on a Saturday night?

Absolutely. Our civilian masters are not to be expected to know the details of force commitment so the Armed forces have to apprise them of things to say -- or not to say. Unfortunately, in the run-up to this one, none of the Military folks had any knowledge or experience of what would happen post attack so they didn't fully warn the civilians. Plus the Generals themselves foolishly used words like 'victory' and 'defeat.' One would hope they'll be smarter next time. However, indication lead me to believe...

Wilf spake:

"nsurgents are, after all, criminals. Criminals have subsets based on the offence, eg- rapists and burglars. Criminal gangs are defined by what they do. EG - Drug Cartel, or Car Thieves."

Yeah, but then, if they're OUR insurgents or we agree with and support them???

Marc:

"Actually, a lot of the definitional problem comes out of basic worldviews. Let me toss out some of my own (very rough) definitions so Sam can pull them apart ."

True that. And Sam would never do such a thing...

Selil said:

As to pirates and brigands can we agree one operates via the water and the other via land and that narc suggest drugs?"

"But, but -- the Marines are amphibious" he said...