Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Insurgency Defined and COIN Principles

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default SECDEF as Quoted Today...

    29 Nov. AP - Don't Call it an 'Insurgency': Rumsfeld.

    U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld argued on Tuesday that the guerrillas fighting U.S.-led foreign forces and the American-backed government in Iraq do not deserve to be called an "insurgency."

    Asked at a Pentagon news conference why he did not think the word insurgency applied to enemy forces in Iraq, Rumsfeld said he had "an epiphany."

    "I've thought about it. And, over the weekend, I thought to myself, you know, that gives them a greater legitimacy than they seem to merit," Rumsfeld said.

    Rumsfeld instead referred to the guerrillas in Iraq as "the terrorists" and "the enemies of the government." U.S. military statements also have referred to insurgents as "anti-Iraqi forces."

    Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines an insurgent as "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government."...

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Now the definition is important

    Our SECDEF has a unique ability to concisely summarize the situation; however, he may have over simplifed it this time. Saying we shouldn't call it an insurgency because it gives too much legitmacy is like saying you can't call the ocean blue because you don't like the color blue. However, for reasons stated previously I think Secretary Rumfield is right, these guys are not a true insurgency. I know it can be argued effectively they are based on some definitions out there, but lets see where we're at once we get a Iraqi government in place. Let's see what the so-called insurgents are fighting for then. They're going to have to put alternative plan on the table, hell they have been fighting for almost three years. We know they don't have one, and will soon simply be recognized is wacked out, semi-sophisticated, anarchists.

    Even though I'm currently leaning towards they're not insurgents, I still think much of our COIN doctrine is applicable in dealing with the problem. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

  3. #3
    Small Wars Journal SWJED's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Largo, Florida
    Posts
    3,989

    Default Rumsfeld's War On 'Insurgents'

    30 Nov. Washington Post - Rumsfeld's War On 'Insurgents'.

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

    Cool Swamps, Drains, and Gators

    Frankly I would say someone is trying to drain a swamp while a gator enjoys a rump lunch. The SecDef had similar discussions in 2003; his defintion of "insurgent" is irrelevant. The definition that counts is how the Iraqis see the insurgents or whatever label we care to tag them with. And therein lies the heart of the problem because that definition is is definitely split along ethnic (Kurd versus Arab) and religious (Sunni versus Shia) lines. Those lines were definitvely drawn long ago and were certainly active when the former asst SecDef told Congress in 2002 that Iraq did not have ethnic schisms ala the Balkans. That statement made as much sense to me then as "epiphany's" today in the current fight.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default that famous statement

    I remember that statement, I was floored, and wondered if it was a joke. Now we can clearly see that they actually believed it based on ill prepared we were to deal with the reality that was right there to see if we simply looked. There is an old Italian saying, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see". It's relevant in this situation.

    All water under the bridge now, but it needs to be remembered by future generations. Ties into that recent study you posted from the SSI.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    262

    Default definitions

    I trust that you are not insinuating that we all mimic Pontius Pilate and wash our hands of this mess. It may well be "all water under the bridge now," however, there are still plenty of us that will have to return for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th tour of duty in Iraq, and thus more will surely pay for this ignorance with their blood. This is unacceptable.

  7. #7
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    At the risk of putting words in Bill's mouth, I don't believe that was his intent. I would say his was the same as mine: that the situation demands realistic assessments that can offer viable courses of action. Using our own cultural paradigms to define the legitimacy of the insurgents is NOT realistic. I believe Bill's "water under the bridge" meant that unrealistic assessments in 2003 cannot be fixed in 2005. That said, we should not compound those errors with further ones.

    Best all,
    Tom

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
  •