The Insurgent View vs. US Military View

[Bob's World]

If the enemy makes you believe that doing him harm, will somehow do you harm, he's won! - and you have no legitimate recourse to armed action. - EG: Ghandi - and Ghandi was not an insurgent! He used Politics, without warfare - so not a military problem.

This is one area where WILF and I take very different perspectives. I take WILF's position to be that insurgency begins when the violence begins, as does the military mission, with both also ending along with the violence.

I see Insurgency as a continuous spectrum that every populace and governance are continuously operating within. Most well down below Mao's Phase I insurgency in what has been described as "pre-insurgency" or "phase 0 insurgency". Perhaps most accurately it is "pre-violence insurgency".

Not only was Ghandi, and also Dr. King here in the states, insurgents; they were so successful at insurgency that they never had to resort to violence to force the government to address the conditions of poor governance that gave rise to their movements.

On the flip side of that "COIN," I also see the passing and implementation of the U.S. Civil Rights Act as the most successful COIN effort ever executed by the US government as well.

Once either the insurgent or the counterinsurgent resorts to violience to accomplish their ends it recognizes a failure at accomplishing the same peacefully first. It does not mean the earlier effort was not equally insurgency or counterinsurgency.

The critical benefit of taking my perspective is that it puts and keeps the onus for COIN on the civil government, making the case that this is an enduring committment and the essence of their function in relation to the populace: Provide Good Governance. Just becuase their failure may result in violence in no way relieves them of their duty to that end. The military comes in as needed and out again once good governance is restored.

[William F. Owen]

Perhaps most accurately it is "pre-violence insurgency".

You could call it a "Protest Group" or even "Political Party."

[marct]

You could call it a "Protest Group" or even "Political Party."

There's a difference, Wilf? Seriously, if the political goal is to change the current balance of power and resource allocation in a society, then the means will flow along a continuous spectrum from "passive resistance" (a la Ghandi) to outright revolt. When does it become and "insurgency"? I would have to disagree with you that it does so when violence starts. I would argue, instead, that it is when violence becomes the means of choice, so it's not a crisp set, it's a fuzzy one.

Case in point, and keeping with BW's MLK example, are the Rodney King riots in LA an insurgency? How about the actions of James Cromitie, David Williams, Onta Williams and Laguerre Payen (see here)?

The problem, and it is a sliperry slope one, is that whatever term is applied to a group, then the group will start adopting some of the implications of that term.

[Bob's World]

This is one of those important nuances that can make the difference between a successful or failed COIN.

I think there is a difference between a political group and pre-violent insurgency.

The difference for me lies in my definition of causation for insurgency "A perception of poor governance on the part of some significant segment of the populace that they also perceive they have no legitimate means to resolve."

I see a political group as one that is working within a legitimate system to effect change. An insurgency, perceiving that either there is no legimate means, or that the legimate means that exist, for whatever reason, will not work to adddress their concern, works outside that system to effect change. If that fails as well, they will most likely rise up to acts of violence.

A political group (defined as one working within the legimate system) will likely just accept political failure and live with it, or perhaps if it may cause them to move into the realm of "pre-violence insurgency.

A matter of stages, so shades of grey. Again, I see this as a continuous spectrum. Making it too black and white creates unneccessary gaps and seams that the insurgent can exploit

[William F. Owen]

Seriously, if the political goal is to change the current balance of power and resource allocation in a society, then the means will flow along a continuous spectrum from "passive resistance" (a la Ghandi) to outright revolt. When does it become and "insurgency"?

So you mean subversion?

It becomes an insurgency when you use "military means." - physical actions using organised violence. The ONLY reason Ghandi opted for non-violence was that it made the use of military force against him, illegitimate and illegal. - which was the point of my original thesis about the success of tactical actions.

[AmericanPride]

Just a quibble about definitions:

Does "military means" include TTPs considered illegal by the laws of war, etc?

[William F. Owen]

Does "military means" include TTPs considered illegal by the laws of war, etc?

Not sure about "illegal" TTPs but actions deemed illegal by the various conventions would not disqualify something from being military, in my view, so yes, I guess it would.

- BUT we are getting off the point, which was that I find it hard to see how actual "tactical success" (not abuse, over reaction, or atrocities) can undermine "strategy". If the enemy has managed to cause YOU to believe that harming HIM, is counter productive, then YOU have been suppressed into not acting.

Military history just does not support this thesis in my view. In the vast majority of cases, tactical success gains you advantage, be it operational or strategic.

[Bob's World]

We Americans are strange cats though....Generals (though never Admirals I like to remind my Navy brothers) become Presidents, and Presidents think they are Generals. War is politics and politics is war. There are rules, but no few read them, and the rest tend to ignore them.

Yet like no other nation, it is clear and inviolate that there is civilian leadership of the military, and we all serve the people and protect and preserve the Constitution. The fact that some in the military dare to have thoughts on policy and strategy and actually voice them has never placed any of that at risk, and I suspect has made us what we are today.