Bob, I fully agree with you but then we come back to the question: how to deferenciate riots from insurgencies from civil wars.Bob's world:
As to the "war is war" position; I hold that not all violence is war and it is dangerous to treat it as such and that COIN is best viewed as a civil emergency by the challenged government. In this light it is EXTREMELY valuable to understand the difference between insurgency and other forms of conflict so that one can apply an appropriate solution.
The GC were written by states who were particularly concerned by protecting their independance and freedom of action to regulate violence, even with extreme violence, inside their borders.
I also believe that what would qualify most of the civil wars is the absence of recognised domestic government.
In an insurgency, the international community recognises 1 national government and does not recognise the opposite party as the official government. And that was all the chalenge of GC protocol 4: how move from police operations which are not covered by GC and are not wars to a situation that is not civil war (I would not qualify it as insurgency) but regognised as war. And therefore GC and law of war would apply.
Because with the too enlarge qualification of a situation as insurgency, there is a dilusion of COIN requirements and response.
A riot needs to have a police response and a governance response. But GC and LAW OF WAR DO NOT APPLY.
An insurgency requires military and governance response. And GC and LAW OF WAR DO APPLY.
How do you make the difference? recognising that the situation is a war is the starting point. War has to be war to be fought as a war. You need to name the game before playing it.
Bookmarks