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.Originally Posted by Bob's World
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
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks