Another view
Here's what I was taught- the independent variable is the guerrila's capacity to conduct violence.
So,
An insurgency can be labeled a civil war once the guerrila builds the same capacity to conduct violence (military mass) that the host nation possesses.
Applied loosely, this does not have to mean the the guerrila possesses the same amount of tanks as the host nation. That's why one could justify Iraq moved into a civil war between late 2005 and early 2006.
Mike, you've probably nailed the majority position
I don't like it though, don't see the difference as being one of scale or capacity, but rather one of nature. How is the nature of insurgency unique from that of civil war?Originally Posted by MikeF
I see civil war as being much more like any other state on state war, except that in this case one state decided to form into two states and then wage state on state war. So for me civil war is war. It only denotes that both sides were a single state before it started and are fighting over the split.
Insurgency need never split the state. As I (frequently, Ken reminds me) state, I see insurgency as a unique set of causal conditions rooted in certain fundamental failures on the part of the government as perceived by their populace. As Marc indicates, this can then manifest itself in several forms, some non-violent, some violent, some legal, some illegal. The causal roots are the same for this family of insurgency-based conflict. Regardless of how it manifests, addressing the causal roots must be the focus/main effort of the COIN effort. If it goes violent you have "classic insurgency"; if it goes illegal, but non-violent, you have "classic subversion; if it stays legal but stays non-violent you have politics. You may get each sequentially, or at the same time, or in a crazy mix over years and years. So long as the causal roots remain unaddressed it is the gift that keeps giving.
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)
Perhaps you're projecting too much from the US case? Most civil wars (English, Russian, Lebanese, Liberian, etc) aren't primarily about political separation, they're about control.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
I would tend to agree with Rex. U.S. historical examples are often rather singular and can be difficult to use on a wider scale or stage.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Rex, very interesting thread. Do you think you could possibly expand on the idea of control some? In the context you are using the word control, control of or over what? Not trying to nail you down or anything I am just curious what you meant by control.
Ryan Leigh
US Army
Political control--over regime, territory, and the allocation of resources.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
Rex, not projecting, just searching for a usable distinction
I Recognize that "civil war" is a term used to describe all kinds of conflicts; most of which I would argue really weren't civil wars at all but rather were more insurgencies. But with no firm definitions to work with, why argue? So not projecting the US verson, but merely seeing it as distinct from insurgency, so perhaps a workable model for a definition of Civil War that is also distinct from insurgency.
Size is not a good distinction, and as the Maoist model suggests an insurgency can grow until it becomes very conventional in nature, so type of warfare being waged is not a good distinction either. I think you have to look at the causal roots to find viable distinctions; and this is also where you shape viable COAs for dealing with a conflict as well.
The historically sloppy use of the term "civil war" by historians really clouds development of a workable definition that makes it distinct from insurgency in a meaningful, helpful way.
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)
Again, why do we wish to differentiate? Basically the problem here is the silly word "insurgency" which has become so loaded, it has now ceased to be useful, thanks to the US COIN-club malarky.
IMO, it matters not if it's an Rebellion or a Civil War. You are still backing one side against the other, in line with US policy.
The mission is to make sure that the side you like wins. That's it!! Pick a side, and resource it, until it has defeated the armed opposition. Why make it more complex?
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Sir, it's just a matter of what lens that you are using. I don't think that has to be mutually exclusive. Rather, I can blend scale/capacity and what you'd describe as the soul. I'd suggest we put them together in order to have a better understanding of the conflict. For example, two dudes who act violently over justified grievances over bad governance are less of a concern to me than a million man army gathering in DC.
That makes sense. And you still need to address the issue of control.Insurgency need never split the state. As I (frequently, Ken reminds me
From Rex
Excellent points Rex, but we must also remember that it's an illusion of control. That's actually one reason why I think that Glenn Beck is so paranoid these days. He finally realized most of the things he took for granted were illusions- security, economics, etc...They are based on the belief that something is true.Political control--over regime, territory, and the allocation of resources.
Economic example- My bank says that my savings account has $10000. Does the bank physically have my money on hand? No. They've reinvested it into loans, bonds, stocks, etc...If I go and ask for my money, then no problem. If everyone makes a run on the bank, then big problem.
Mike
Mike:
Feel free to send me some of that illusionary money in your bank anytime.
They mostly come at night. Mostly.
- university webpage: McGill University
- conflict simulations webpage: PaxSims
No kidding!Mike:
Feel free to send me some of that illusionary money in your bank anytime.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Rex/Steve,Feel free to send me some of that illusionary money in your bank anytime.
I've got 1,000,000 Iraqi dinars ready to transfer. Should buy you a cup of coffee
Mike
So long as it's not Starbucks, you're on!Rex/Steve,
I've got 1,000,000 Iraqi dinars ready to transfer. Should buy you a cup of coffee
Mike
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks