Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 80

Thread: Why democracies don't lose insurgencies

  1. #21
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Wink Some things in this world don't ever change

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    OK, then to completely disagree with Wilf, my concern would be that if everything depends on how you define things, it might be hard to gain a lot of insight..
    Whenever approaching any study such as this definitions do tend to effect what you see, that however doesn't represent the truth of what they are.

    Given that one approaches the subject in such a manner as to tracing the roots and from there following up the tree this could turn out to be very insightful



    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    To carry it further, if you're carrying an assault rifle, no matter what happens, some people will never believe it was voluntary.
    While perhaps true that nonetheless fails to prove that it wasn't voluntary.

    Lots and lots of "some people" out there. Never gonna please em all
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

  2. #22
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default This is an example of the ill informed

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    ...For that matter, changing the definition of "democracy" invalidates your thesis:

    "...The country is alleged by many historians to have been nothing more than an American-backed puppet government, but many others claim that it was genuine democracy (or, at the least, a patriotic movement with genuine concern for the Vietnamese people). An individual's views on the matter generally correspond closely to their views on the Vietnam War in general - supporters of the war often believe that South Vietnam was a democracy, and thus worthy of defence, while opponents of the war often believe that South Vietnamese democracy was a sham.[/URL]
    stupidity in the discourse on Viet Nam. It was emphatically a democracy but one in the Asian model; an oligarchy at the top, elected politicians below -- particularly at Province and local level. The leaders responded to the populace. Anyone who contends it was a puppet government in verging on idiocy. The Viet Namese ran their country, took little to no advice from the Americans (unless we offered a healthy bribe; even they'd demur frequently) and did what they wanted to -- frequently stymieing US goals.

    To echo Ron Humphrey on your later comments:
    OK, then to completely disagree with Wilf, my concern would be that if everything depends on how you define things, it might be hard to gain a lot of insight.
    Doesn't almost everything depend on how one defines things? Acknowledging that 'one' is human and we are infinitely variable.

    All inquiry starts with a postulation, not the postulation...
    To carry it further, if you're carrying an assault rifle, no matter what happens, some people will never believe it was voluntary.
    Oh, I dunno, I carried a rifle for years, it was purely voluntary. Still do on occasion; still voluntary. As an aside, 'Assault Rifle' is a term invented by the mostly ignorant popular media and perpetuated by even more ignorant Congroids who banned all "Assault Rifles" except those they didn't ban. A rifle is a rifle, not really any such thing as an 'Assault Rifle' (other than in the eyes of the US Congress. I rest my case...). That also excuses people who carry just pistols or who carry SMGs, MG, RPGs and such, I guess...

    If, OTOH, as opposed to what you said, what you meant was if someone carrying a weapon was strolling about, any changes in the local milieu brought about by the elements that person represents will not be viewed as voluntary by some observers in the population of the locale where said weapon carrying soul then I'd say you're correct. I'd also suggest that the number so viewing that issue in that light will depend on many things and that for the most part, there will always be some nervous, whiney types who will see danger in anything but that most people have enough sense to judge things based on reality instead of ideology.

    For example, the Gendarmerie in France has been wandering about with Rifles, Pistols and SMGs for years and a few people in France see that as threatening -- most of the French nation and its visitors, however, do not.

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
    Lots and lots of "some people" out there. Never gonna please em all
    And every one of them is a potential insurgent.



    Neil, another factor to consider is that in a democracy, the environment isn't binary. In other words, if people hate the government the insurgents aren't their only alternative. (I believe you have a wee bit of experience in what happens when you give people a third option. )
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default "How of fighting" vs. "Who of fighting"

    The conclusion of UM's link (p.24) is interesting:

    While better measures of democracy may lead to a reassessment, it appears that regime type has little analytical utility for explaining COIN war outcomes and duration. Instead, emphasizing battlefield dynamics (the “how” of fighting) may prove a better theoretical bet than focusing on regime-specific variables (the “who” of fighting). Indeed, the degree of a military’s mechanization, its status as an external occupier, and the level of material support for insurgents all proved more consequential for explaining outcomes and duration. In short, democracies do struggle to defeat insurgents — but not because they are democracies.
    Wilf, is this your position - more or less ?

    -----------------
    Some more articles by the same author are here.
    Last edited by jmm99; 01-29-2009 at 07:37 PM.

  5. #25
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    It was emphatically a democracy but one in the Asian model
    Didn't the insurgents win that one?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    A rifle is a rifle
    I suspect that if anyone asked you to carry one of these around Vietnam, you may have had a slightly different opinion.



    but to keep the conversation on topic, weapons obviously matter: both physically and symbolically.
    Last edited by Rank amateur; 01-29-2009 at 07:56 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    Sometimes it takes someone without deep experience to think creatively.

  6. #26
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Angry Bah Humbug

    I find this whole thread misleading and dangerous due to the vast assumptions going on to fuel it. One, a true democracy of "one person, one vote" is essentially mob rule and where the majority is in violent opposition to the minority then there is strong fuel for insurgency. If the minority is either, by coalition, a larger force then the nominal majority or has better support and resources, then they can "win". period. Too assume otherwise is foolish. Second it assumes that a democracy is what everyone really really wants in there hearts of hearts and if only they could truly experience it, the world would be better. The insurgencies that we face today are often fueled as much by international ideology, particularly radical Islamic ideology as they are by national or sub-national concerns. Don't get to hung up on the west vs. Islam either, because that can change just as quick too. Third it assumes that terrorism and insurgency are unique and cleanly separate from each other, they are not, terrorism is a means or technique of insurgency. Focus on the realities of the fight you are in, instead of trying to develop a COIN master plan because in order to do that you have make assumptions, and when you assume it makes an ass out of u and me.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  7. #27
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Bignorance is liss...

    Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
    Didn't the insurgents win that one?
    No. More ignorance. The insurgents were severely tromped and almost totally ineffective before the last US troops left in 1973. The North Viet Namese Army won it in 1975 -- with a conventional invasion, not an insurgency.
    I suspect that if anyone asked you to carry one of these around Vietnam, you may have had a slightly different opinion.
    Since I carried an M16 and there was little difference between that and your pictured weapon, I don't see a problem. A .22 is a .22...

    In any event, as the Actress said to the Bishop it's not what you have...
    but to keep the conversation on topic, weapons obviously matter: both physically and symbolically.
    Physically, of course. Symbolically, not nearly as much as you appear to believe. There are a lot of areas in the world where weapons are routinely carried -- there, they tend to look askance at those who do not have a weapon.

    If I may, you seem to be judging everything from a western perspective. We westerners account for about 25% of the world population -- the other 75% don't think like we do and to judge their responses by our thought processes is dangerous (See Viet Nam, to use your favorite whipping boy ).

  8. #28
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Hah Bumbug

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    I find this whole thread misleading and dangerous due to the vast assumptions going on to fuel it.
    Your prerogative. Couldn't you say so without being confrontational?
    One, a true democracy of "one person, one vote" is essentially mob rule and where the majority is in violent opposition to the minority then there is strong fuel for insurgency.
    There are several places where that isn't entirely true; the mob rule aspect, I mean. As for the other, did you mean where the minority is in violent opposition to the majority?
    If the minority is either, by coalition, a larger force then the nominal majority or has better support and resources, then they can "win". period.
    Can you validate that with examples? I can't think of any right off hand but since you mention it, I'm sure you can provide a couple of examples.
    Too assume otherwise is foolish.
    Is that fact or your opinion?
    Second it assumes that a democracy is what everyone really really wants in there hearts of hearts and if only they could truly experience it, the world would be better.
    I did not see or assume that. Why do you think so?
    The insurgencies that we face today are often fueled as much by international ideology, particularly radical Islamic ideology as they are by national or sub-national concerns. Don't get to hung up on the west vs. Islam either, because that can change just as quick too.
    Probably true.
    Third it assumes that terrorism and insurgency are unique and cleanly separate from each other, they are not, terrorism is a means or technique of insurgency.
    Why do you say that? I do not see such a linkage in the postulation.
    Focus on the realities of the fight you are in, instead of trying to develop a COIN master plan because in order to do that you have make assumptions, and when you assume it makes an ass out of u and me.
    That's all very well for a COIN Master Plan -- but the man said he was doing it for his Graduate School Thesis -- a very different thing. Thus, I'm not at all sure why you're objecting to it...

  9. #29
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    69

    Default Political system matters not, or at least is not significant

    De Gaulle and Liddell-Hart met deaf ears. Surprisingly, Guderian and Tuhachevski were only listened to in the world’s two most oppressive political systems.
    Nihil sub sole novum.

  10. #30
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Reed,

    It's for a graduate Security Studies/PolSci major. Thus, the terms I am using are those related to that academic field, and not the colloquial or subjective use of the terms which you seem to be confusing them with.

    In the intl relations fields, the definitions of government types are generally accepted (one can always argue fringe cases) based on characteristics - not moral value. Hence, a democracy in this academic context is usually defined as a government freely elected by the people (either representative or direct), with high degrees of political, press, and economic freedom, and conducting regular elections of some sort, driving turnover. Also, the electorate must be inclusive to the population of the country.

    There is a huge body of literature based on the emperical observation of the "Democratic Peace" - i.e. that from 1945 forward democracies have not gone to war with each other or generally initiated wars. The argument as to why (casual and structural arguments) has burned up more journals and books than I care to count. I tend to come down on the structuralist side, but that is neither here nor there.

    I have uncovered an emperical observation concerning insurgencies, as separated from terrorist groups and civil war. For an my version of what constitutes a terrorist group vs. insurgency vs. civil war, see below:

    Quote Originally Posted by Me
    Why Insurgency?

    Insurgency is a unique type of conflict encompassing a wide range of political, military, social, and economic factors. (Galula 1964) The term “insurgency” is defined by the United States Military as “An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict.” (Department of Defense 2008) The US Government Interagency definition is a little more expansive, saying, “Insurgency is a protracted political-military campaign conducted by an organized movement seeking to subvert or displace the government and completely or partially control the resources and/or population of a country through the use of force and alternative political organizations.” (Department of State 2007) The nature of insurgency is primarily political waged against a constituted government with an objective of regime change or secession. Insurgences often occur against the influence of a foreign occupying power or for regional/local autonomy.

    From a combat standpoint, insurgency is distinctly guerilla in character, involving small bands of partisans operating within the population against the existing regime. It places a high value on political mobilization, drawing its fighters, supplies, intelligence, and refuge from the population of the involved country. (Trinquier 1964) Many insurgencies receive support from outside forces, whether states or non-state organizations. Because of their military weakness and lack of heavy forces, insurgencies seek to attack a regime’s weakness and avoid open conflict with organized military forces unless a clear military or political objective can be obtained. Victory is usually achieved through “wearing the enemy down” rather than through military conquest, or through coup-like action. Some insurgencies manage to field organized military forces in the end stages, escalating the conflict to civil war.

    Insurgency is distinct from civil war. US Army Field Manual 100-20 provides the definition of civil war accepted by the United States military. Five criteria exist for a conflict meet the standard of civil war – control of territory, functioning government, foreign recognition, regular armed forces, and capability to engage in major military operations. (Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force 1990) Some academics are less demanding, defining civil war as, “Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain.” (Henderson and Singer 2000). What is common between the two definitions is an emphasis on conflict internal to a state conducted largely with organized military forces. Because insurgents often organize in highly irregular groups and cells without clear chains of command, not all civil wars meet the criteria of insurgency. Insurgents usually do not completely control the terrain they operate in, and thus operate in a non-linear method against the established government. Therefore, civil wars are different in character from insurgencies, and require a different approach by the government to control. The distinction is imperfect, and there will always be overlap between civil war and insurgency.

    Defining terrorism versus insurgencies is also important so as not to confuse all insurgencies with terrorist groups. Terrorism is described as, “… the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence the pursuit of political change.” (Hoffman 2006) Thus terrorism is primarily a tactic employed for political ends, and can be used in almost any dispute context. Terrorist groups in many cases may be insurgencies, or simply political organizations seeking recognition of their cause. Regardless of the objective, it is clear that while not all terrorist groups are insurgencies, most insurgencies use terrorism as a tactic against either the population or the government to achieve their political goals. (Hoffman 2006)
    So while examining 89 cases of insurgencies identified by RAND (vice 600 terrorist groups in the same period), There were 26 insurgent victories. Of those 26, none were against democracies, even though 20 of the 89 cases were against democratic regimes.

    The scholarly question becomes - why are democratic governments less likely to fall to insurgencies? The point of this thread was to see if any of the experts lurking or present here could demonstrate selection bias - cases I ignored which may discredit the empirical observation I am preparing to write the thesis on - a qualitative and quantitative examination of why this may be so. At this point, I don't know if it is luck, economics, governmental inclusion, military competence, etc. The point is that I don't have a conclusion, just an empirical observation and some data points.

    That is what this thesis will test, and attempt to draw potential conclusions and inferences from. It will also hopefully provide avenues for others to research in more quantitative or qualitative detail.

    So yes, this isn't a muddy boots thesis, but it may (or may not) have muddy boots implications. Remember, I'm writing for an academic committee.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  11. #31
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by UrsaMaior View Post
    I found the below study.

    Lyall, John, ’Do Democracies Make Inferior Counterinsurgents?’, 2007, Available at: http://www.princeton.edu/~jlyall/DemoWar.pdf

    I would appreciate your opinion about it.

    THX in advance.
    Thanks for the good read. However, it is a little apples to oranges for the following reasons:

    1) Dataset is 1800-present. I have a big issue equating democracy pre-1945 with democracy post-1945 in structure - lots of variables change in that period. One could successfully argue in the pol-sci sphere that the US was not a full democracy (in the pol-sci sense) until either 1920 or the 1960's, as significant populations (women and African Americans) were denied full voting rights - for example. Using this standard, there are actually very few democracies pre-1945 in the world. The post 1945 dataset helps compare apples to apples.

    2) They count Malaya, Kenya, Vietnam (FR) , Algeria, India (UK), etc. as "insurgencies" against democracies. I would say they are insurgencies against colonial powers who tend to be democracies at home. The population of those countries were not participants in the democracy fought against. Therefore, I would exclude them from my test, as I am evaluating indigenous insurgent success against sovereign democracies.

    In other words, the population generating the insurgents must have voting rights in the state.

    My observation from the RAND data was based on those cases. I think introducing anti-colonial insurgencies where the affected population was denied suffrage into the mix skews the data heavily.

    I'll take a harder look. Thanks!
    Last edited by Cavguy; 01-29-2009 at 10:39 PM.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  12. #32
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Red face gubmuh hab

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    Your prerogative. Couldn't you say so without being confrontational?
    Yes, I'll blame low blood sugar and apologize.
    There are several places where that isn't entirely true; the mob rule aspect, I mean. As for the other, did you mean where the minority is in violent opposition to the majority?
    It may not be always true, but without protections for the minority built into the body of law, it is a very real possibility. Iraq in 2005 could be considered an example of this, as for the other, either way it still is true, right?

    Can you validate that with examples? I can't think of any right off hand but since you mention it, I'm sure you can provide a couple of examples.
    I'll get back to you on this one, but would not most insurgencies be led, at least initially by a minority population?
    Is that fact or your opinion?
    Opinion, but it is based on the opinion that underestimating your opponent is dumb, likely a shared opinion with many would be my guess.
    I did not see or assume that. Why do you think so?
    Did not say you did, it is a response to the many "global community" theorists I have read and seem mentioned in this council, I disagree with them, but I can't put my thumb on a good enough example to communicate it very effectively yet.
    Why do you say that? I do not see such a linkage in the postulation.
    More on this later, while I figure out how to communicate it well.
    That's all very well for a COIN Master Plan -- but the man said he was doing it for his Graduate School Thesis -- a very different thing. Thus, I'm not at all sure why you're objecting to it...
    Can I go with low blood sugar again?
    Reed
    P.S. Please do not respond to my posts line by line anymore. It is a pet peeve of mine and it is almost impossible to respond without sounding defensive. I always appreciate your feedback, but please do it the conventional manner
    Last edited by reed11b; 01-29-2009 at 10:42 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  13. #33
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Phase III Maoist insurgency is conventional force

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    No. More ignorance. The insurgents were severely tromped and almost totally ineffective before the last US troops left in 1973. The North Viet Namese Army won it in 1975 -- with a conventional invasion, not an insurgency..
    Ken,

    You've raised this point at least a couple of times that I am aware of, and while you are factually accurate, the grand design of Maoist Insurgency is to culminate in a conventional force that seals the deal. So to say that the insurgency did not win is not really fair, they simply followed the full program to its logical conclusion, moving up and down between phases I and II, attempting III prematurely and backing down to II again, and finally, as you state, in 1975 being able to pull off the phase III conclusion.

    I am quite confident that if that attack had been defeated, things would have simmered down in phase II for a while until they felt the conditions were right to try a phase III operation again.

    Which goes to the point of insurgency: So long as the underlying conditions that gave rise to the insurgency exist, you can suppress it, but you can not stomp it out. The government must ultimately answer to its populace; either at the end of a bayonet, or by simply doing their job and addressing the legitimate concerns and grievances (or getting out of the way and allowing a governance that will do so) before it comes to that.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  14. #34
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default It can happen...

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    ...It may not be always true, but without protections for the minority built into the body of law, it is a very real possibility. Iraq in 2005 could be considered an example of this, as for the other, either way it still is true, right?
    True -- but a lot of nations have that protection and obey their laws -- just as some do not. Point was that was sort of a sweeping statement. On the 'either way' -- if you mean that the majority is oppressing the minority forcefully causing them to rebel, then it's possible.
    I'll get back to you on this one, but would not most insurgencies be led, at least initially by a minority population?
    Or by a neighbor who stirs up that minority and leads them or by an outsider like Guevara in Bolivia a who tries and fails. Such outside 'leadership' or incitement is not at all unusual and was very prevalent during the Cold War...
    Opinion, but it is based on the opinion that underestimating your opponent is dumb, likely a shared opinion with many would be my guess.
    To assume much of anything when discussing warfare can be foolish. Size does not always win, usually, yeah but not always. See the Confrontation in Malaysia for an example -- or Mao in China.
    Did not say you did, it is a response to the many "global community" theorists I have read and seem mentioned in this council, I disagree with them, but I can't put my thumb on a good enough example to communicate it very effectively yet.
    I didn't see any global theorists positions mentioned in the thread, either. My question was why you mentioned it in view of that, no more.
    More on this later, while I figure out how to communicate it well.
    No terrorism stipulation in the thread; you can of course pop it in a as a new thread but I don't see that it's germane to this one.
    P.S. Please do not respond to my posts line by line anymore. It is a pet peeve of mine and it is almost impossible to respond without sounding defensive. I always appreciate your feedback, but please do it the conventional manner
    Sorry, to me it's logical way to respond; someone makes a specific statement; I respond to that with a specific comment or question. I'm not sure I see it as an attack or necessitating a defensive answer but I will suggest that if one makes a statement, one should be prepared to defend it or otherwise address the issue head on. As for conventional, to me that is the conventional way to respond, it seems better to me than a big paragraph that touches on five or more topics which makes it hard to pull the thoughts to address. We're all unique and do things differently and that should be generally okay, particularly on a public board where a lot of varied people are going to do things their way.

    It is okay with me...

  15. #35
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default War is not fair...

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    You've raised this point at least a couple of times that I am aware of, and while you are factually accurate, the grand design of Maoist Insurgency is to culminate in a conventional force that seals the deal. So to say that the insurgency did not win is not really fair, they simply followed the full program to its logical conclusion, moving up and down between phases I and II, attempting III prematurely and backing down to II again, and finally, as you state, in 1975 being able to pull off the phase III conclusion.
    And by that time well over 90 plus percent of the original insurgents were dead. I'm aware of Mao's Phases -- even more aware of Giap's (who was about twice as smart as Mao) plan.
    I am quite confident that if that attack had been defeated, things would have simmered down in phase II for a while until they felt the conditions were right to try a phase III operation again.
    Probably true.
    Which goes to the point of insurgency: So long as the underlying conditions that gave rise to the insurgency exist, you can suppress it, but you can not stomp it out. The government must ultimately answer to its populace; either at the end of a bayonet, or by simply doing their job and addressing the legitimate concerns and grievances (or getting out of the way and allowing a governance that will do so) before it comes to that.
    Not really true with respect to Viet Nam -- most of the populace just wanted to be left alone. Some insurgencies are started and run by very dedicated folks who take the semblance of a problem, elevate it to a casus belli and go for broke.

    I usually object to comparisons of Malaya and Viet Nam because the efforts were so very different -- but they do have one thing in common; in both cases an outside power (China in the first case, North Viet Nam in the second) took some social ills and raised them to start insurrections. Both were effectively stopped by a combination of good COIN tactics (very belatedly in VN) and political fixes. The big difference was that China was in no position to elevate to Phase III.

    So yeah, it was a three phase effort -- but the insurgents didn't win they were mostly Southerners who did not necessarily want to hew to Ho. Another nation's fighters did win -- and the North had manipulated the VC almost as badly as they did the US.

    The insurgency in VN, BTW, does not meet your definition of bad underlying conditions; the South was in better shape than the North on that score in the early 60s an people in both nations knew that.

  16. #36
    Council Member reed11b's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Olympia WA
    Posts
    531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    The insurgency in VN, BTW, does not meet your definition of bad underlying conditions; the South was in better shape than the North on that score in the early 60s an people in both nations knew that.
    Is this considered nessecary to be defined as an insurgency? What about where ideological or political differences are the drive behind armed resistance, such as the religious conflicts in the ME, or the Chechan revolt?
    What about the Kurdish attempts to build there own homeland, this fights across multiple nation borders and would they still fight eben if they were financialy well off? I feel that they would if some one sold them on the concept of greater Kurdistan effectivly.
    Reed
    Quote Originally Posted by sapperfitz82 View Post
    This truly is the bike helmet generation.

  17. #37
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    Is this considered nessecary to be defined as an insurgency? What about where ideological or political differences are the drive behind armed resistance, such as the religious conflicts in the ME, or the Chechan revolt?
    What about the Kurdish attempts to build there own homeland, this fights across multiple nation borders and would they still fight eben if they were financialy well off? I feel that they would if some one sold them on the concept of greater Kurdistan effectivly.
    Reed
    I think the definitions my above post (USG and DoD) answers your question.

    There is no "hard" standard for categorization. Some subjectivity is involved.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  18. #38
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Not sure whether you were talking to

    Quote Originally Posted by reed11b View Post
    Is this considered nessecary to be defined as an insurgency?
    Bob's World whose position my response that you quoted was directed to; to me; or to Cav Guy whose thread this is?

    In any event CavGuy answered and did it well IMO. As for the position Bob's World states, he didn't restrict it to economic or social matters so the religious difference or just an ideological difference as well as ethnic and other differences are covered by his conditional requirement.

    I believe that all those things you mention and more in the two Viet Nams in the early 60s were roughly in balance with slightly better industry and more efficient government with less corruption in the North but better economic, religious and ethnic / individual freedom conditions in the South. It was IMO better than a draw with a fair edge to the South, thus my response to him.

  19. #39
    Council Member ipopescu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    40

    Default Some readings on a closely related topic

    Cavguy,

    One of the weeks of my graduate seminar in international security here at Duke deals with the performance of democracies in wars in general. This question is larger than your specific topic, but I'm thinking you might find it useful to look over some of these readings (unless you've done so already) to get an idea of how the literature on this issue evolved and where it is right now.

    Håvard Hegre, et al., “Toward a Democratic Civil Peace? Democracy, Political Change, and Civil War, 1816-1992,” APSR 95/1 (March 2001): 33-48.
    Dan Reiter and Allan C. Stam, Democracies at War (Princeton, 2002).
    David A. Lake, “Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War,” APSR 86/1 (March 1992): 24- 37.
    Michael C. Desch, “Democracy and Victory: Why Regime Type Hardly Matters,” IS 27/2 (Fall 2002): 5-47.
    Responses to Desch by Choi, Lake, and Reiter and Stam; and Desch’s reply, IS 28/1 (Summer 2003): 142-94.
    Alexander B. Downes, “How Smart (and Tough) Are Democracies Anyway? Reassessing Theories of Democratic Victory in War,” IS (forthcoming; Blackboard).
    Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, and James D. Morrow, The Logic of Political Survival (MIT, 2003).
    Christopher F. Gelpi and Michael Griesdorf, “Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crisis, 1918-94,” APSR 95/3 (September 2001): 633-47.
    Gil Merom, How Democracies Lose Small Wars: State, Society, and the Failures of France in Algeria, Israel in Lebanon, and the United States in Vietnam (Cambridge, 2003).

    Recommended Critiques:
    Michael C. Desch, Power and Military Effectiveness: The Fallacy of Democratic Triumphalism (Johns Hopkins, 2008).
    Stephen Biddle and Stephen Long, “Democracy and Military Effectiveness: A Deeper Look,” JCR 48/4 (August 2004): 525-46.
    Risa Brooks, “Making Military Might: Why Do States Fail and Succeed? A Review Essay,” IS 28/2 (Fall 2003): 149-91.

    I personally find your topic highly interesting. Do you have any particular case-studies in mind as well?
    Ionut C. Popescu
    Doctoral Student, Duke University - Political Science Department

  20. #40
    Council Member Ron Humphrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    1,099

    Post Warning Will Robinson Warning- Major over simplification incoming

    Forgive me for the way this may sound but doesn't it seem like the actual justification's or reasons we find for unrest in general let alone insurgency, wars and the like are formed into some sort of massive jumble through our efforts to explain it rather than just see them for what they are?

    Mankind is.

    Mankind thinks- (sometimes)

    A family is the base unit of our communal existence, within it constructs we find order through determination to follow whatever path seems consistant with survival and perhaps even more importantly further development. Call it what you will; self-determination, self-actualization, self-development, Whats in it for me, etc.

    Each individual seeks to find success(for lack of a better word) through their interactions with others in context with the environment within which they find themselves and what their experiences have shown them to be at least plausible. That said the structure for leadership doesn't really seem to vary so much as many seem to believe.

    Parents fill the role of providing guidance and direction for the family, that is until such time as the children feel that their (needs, wants, desires, just deserts) are not being met to their satisfaction and they choose to strike off on their own. Societal norms generally seem to follow this same basic premise. So IMHO do many if not all major forms of governance.

    Dictatorial - I follow you because I have no other choice, but at least I'm alive( Let the latter part come into question and I revolt regardless of my chances for success

    Ideological- Generally Same as above except its not that I have too but that I choose to ascribe to said philosophy and as such follow you

    Theocratic- I follow you because my faith teaches that I must follow the direction of those who have or are being directed to lead me
    ( This works until, as with the family unit I feel that my needs be they spiritual or otherwise are not being met with what I believe my faith requires of my leaders.

    Democratic- The family chooses its leader through whatever form its comfortable with and follows them. Society chooses it leaders and as such chooses to follow with the addendum that should you not get them what they want they can choose somebody else. Let it get to where they feel like you might take that choice away and they'll revolt.


    Long and short many in this life just want to be left alone but are still a part of whatever process takes place within their environments. If things become notably out of sorts they will and do come out of their corners.

    Dictatorships have a really hard time dealing with that awakened giant due to the fact their survival was enabled through that groups silence

    Theocracies have the choice of adjusting their overall presentation in order to facilitate a settling of tension's. They just have a tendency of refusing to do so due to "principles" or the fact that they really didn't believe so much as they used that belief to enhance their stature.

    Democracies can and do more often than not get changes sufficient to calm the heaviest part of the uprisings and when they don't wars happen. Since most still want at least a semblance of democracy the more common action is to compromise and address the grievances one way or another.

    Rant complete


    OH well Good luck with the paper Niel
    Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

    Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur

Similar Threads

  1. Latest Small Wars & Insurgencies Journal
    By Steve Blair in forum Catch-All, Military Art & Science
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-31-2009, 11:14 AM
  2. Insurgencies Like Iraq's Usually Last 10 Years But Fail, Study Says
    By SWJED in forum Who is Fighting Whom? How and Why?
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 09:18 AM
  3. How to Win in Iraq and How to Lose
    By SWJED in forum US Policy, Interest, and Endgame
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-30-2007, 03:35 PM
  4. How We Lose
    By SWJED in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 04:44 PM
  5. Marines Probing New Ways to Fight Future Insurgencies
    By DDilegge in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-11-2005, 12:46 AM

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
  •