Everything You Know About Counterinsurgency History Is (possibly) Wrong!

[marct]

Hi Bob's World,

To me, the only form of war that could be described as "hybrid" is a true Civil War; as it combines aspects of State vs State conflict with aspects of Populace vs State Conflict. These two types of war while similar on their face or to the rifleman in the frontlines; are extremely different in their strategic construct. Understanding these differences helps shape effective policies, strategies, campagin plans, operations, tactics, etc for a true success.

How would you define a "true" civil war? Would you hold that it requires a state framework, or would a non-state framework work as well. I'm asking because in some ways a large part of the conflct in Afghanistan can be described as a Pashtun civil war analogically quite similar to the English civil war.

Cheers,

Marc

[Bob's World]

Hi Bob's World,



How would you define a "true" civil war? Would you hold that it requires a state framework, or would a non-state framework work as well. I'm asking because in some ways a large part of the conflct in Afghanistan can be described as a Pashtun civil war analogically quite similar to the English civil war.

Cheers,

Marc

Because one segment of the populace broke off and formed a new state and engaged on state on state conflict; but with the underlying unescapable fact that both separate states once were one, and success for the north was to make them one once again.

Perhaps Vietnam as well, as it too was one state broken into two, that fought as two states while also having that same inescapable fact that it was once one. In that regard, come to think of it, the South in Vietnam was much like the South in America. They fought to remain separate, while the north fought to preserve the union.

[marct]

Hi Bob's World,

Because one segment of the populace broke off and formed a new state and engaged on state on state conflict; but with the underlying unescapable fact that both separate states once were one, and success for the north was to make them one once again.

I get the impression that you would consider a contiguous geographic area as a requirement as well. Actually, that issue was why I used the English Civil War as an example - both sides had state constructs although different, but neither side had a fully contiguous land area; somewhat similar to Afghanistan right now.

Perhaps Vietnam as well, as it too was one state broken into two, that fought as two states while also having that same inescapable fact that it was once one. In that regard, come to think of it, the South in Vietnam was much like the South in America. They fought to remain separate, while the north fought to preserve the union.

So would you then view a true civil war only as one in which the goal of one side is the breakup of a larger state into successor states? How would you characterize a civil war where the breakup of the larger state is not a desired end state? Or one where the geographic boundaries of a state are not recognized by one party in the fight?

[William F. Owen]

Actually, that issue was why I used the English Civil War as an example - both sides had state constructs although different, but neither side had a fully contiguous land area; somewhat similar to Afghanistan right now.....

So would you then view a true civil war only as one in which the goal of one side is the breakup of a larger state into successor states?

...but the English Civil was nothing to do with the autonomy or the creation separate states. It was an entirely to do with the absolute authority of the king. It was a war about the type of government.

There are as many causes of civil wars as there are any other type of war or even "insurgencies." What is more, attempting to differentiate these things gets us no further forward.

[Entropy]

What about East Pakistan?

[Bob's World]

So given Marc and WILF's points, I would say that the "English Civil War" belongs in that HUGE pile of historic misnomers.

More accurately, it was a revolutionary insurgency.
(I classify insurgencies into three broad categories: Separatist, Revolutionary, and Resistence)

I Iraq we had all three types of insurgency going on at once; in Afghanistan we have at least two; and anyplace that the US goes there will be causation (though it may not manifest into actual conflict) for a resistence insurgency. How we act can temper the effects of that causation, but only our departure can remove the causation.

[marct]

Hi Bob's World,

So given Marc and WILF's points, I would say that the "English Civil War" belongs in that HUGE pile of historic misnomers.

More accurately, it was a revolutionary insurgency.
(I classify insurgencies into three broad categories: Separatist, Revolutionary, and Resistence)

Ahh, okay, I can live with that type of differentiation. Personally, I would call your first two types "civil wars", but that's a case of using a different signifier for similar concepts - a moot point.

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

...but the English Civil was nothing to do with the autonomy or the creation separate states. It was an entirely to do with the absolute authority of the king. It was a war about the type of government.

I agree, it was over the type of government which, I would argue, is what is going on in Afghanistan right now. The Taliban want one type of government, NATO wants another type and many individual people and groups want still another type. Personally, I don't think that a civil war requires the creation of separate successor states - I view that as a sub-set of civil wars.

There are as many causes of civil wars as there are any other type of war or even "insurgencies." What is more, attempting to differentiate these things gets us no further forward.

I agree as to the multiplicity of causes, but I'll disagree with you on whether or not that gets thing further forward . If the desired end state of one group is to create a successor state, then we can pretty much predict what components of their strategy will be (generally defensive militarily, although a TKO strike is a definite option; a long war with an emphasis on diplomatic recognition; etc.). The same holds true for a war about forms of governance, although the general strategy would be somewhat different and include a much greater degree of education / indoctrination (IO, PR, etc.) and much less reliance on diplomancy.

[Bob's World]

I really don't think much about Civil Wars, so I pulled this from Wikipedia:

"A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state[1], or, less commonly, between two nations created from a formerly-united nation state[2]"

Given this, I stand by my position that the Eglish example was an insurgency, as one player was the state, correct?

So if it breaks into two states, and they fight: Civil War
If two organized groups within the state fight each other: Civil War
If an organized group fights the sitting power to either change it, break away from it, or remove it as in iligitimate outsider: Insurgency.

Mr. Webster may differ, but that's how I see it.

[marct]

I really don't think much about Civil Wars, so I pulled this from Wikipedia:

"A civil war is a war between organized groups within a single nation state[1], or, less commonly, between two nations created from a formerly-united nation state[2]"

Given this, I stand by my position that the Eglish example was an insurgency, as one player was the state, correct?

Not quite, they were both "the state". It hinged on a question of the source of legitimacy - the divine right of the King or the actions of a rump parliament.

So if it breaks into two states, and they fight: Civil War
If two organized groups within the state fight each other: Civil War
If an organized group fights the sitting power to either change it, break away from it, or remove it as in iligitimate outsider: Insurgency.

Then by those definitions, the English Civil War was a civil war of the second type (two organized groups). Both sides had roughly equal legal legitimacy (or illegitimacy - take your pick).

[William F. Owen]

Given this, I stand by my position that the English example was an insurgency, as one player was the state, correct?

How so? According to the King, the Parliament rebelled against him. According to the Parliament, he exceeded his authority and sought power he was not entitled to.

Given that, who is the insurgent?

....and what about La Violencia?