Thanks Jed, I will check it out.
There has been a tremendous amount of study conducted on Soviet suppression of resistance and dissident networks, both in the USSR and in its satellite nations. However, most of that has not been in the context of COIN, but instead with a focus on a broad spectrum of HUMINT ops from the perspective of both sides. Not to mention the occasional crisis interplay of major geo-political actions (i.e. the Suez Crisis and the Hungarian Revolution)Originally Posted by Merv Benson
But recently, some of those who have an interest in Dark Networks have spent a considerable amount of effort looking at Soviet bloc resistance/dissident groups in that specific context, to glean lessons-learned for dealing with terrorist networks.
Here's one interesting look at the subject: When Dark Networks Become Desirable: What Can the Experience of Political Dissidents Teach Governments About Terrorism?
Last edited by Jedburgh; 02-13-2007 at 08:41 PM.
Thanks Jed, I will check it out.
My first post: I have come to the thread late but I think the singular difference between terrorists and insurgents is the behavior toward noncombatants. Terrs advance their political agenda by preying on innocents. I think Caleb Carr's definition is intriguing in that it forces even Allied forces to consider their bombing of noncombatants (dresden, Hamburg, et al) to be acts of terror.
I think the use of IEDs, VBEDs and the whole motley lot of munitions in this category when used against Coalition forces in Iraq and A-Stan are force on force tactics not unlike our use of mines and grenades. The weaker opponent is employing a means it has at its disposal to eqilibrate the calculus of forces in their favor. I would consider the current state of the gov/media complex colluding to make every assault againt our MILITARY forces to be a terr act is absurd beyond belief.
We need to step beyond partisanship in our acquaintance with the goals of the Global War on a Tactic and consider that insurgencies are political entities employing armed force against uniformed forces for their own benefit. A reassessment of the value of limited and even surgical strikes would go along way towards salvaging what is now a countdown to Xenophon's march yet again in Iraq for US forces.
"Then the 'simplest', and by that I don't mean either cheap or easy, solution is to rebuild their economy. I used to work with a friend who grew up in the camps around Peshawar and, from what she told me, you could easily hire an army of "insurgents" as long as you had enough cash and a decent cadre."Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D
Gentleman, you are right-on target. That is the reason I wanted to make it clear that we must make a distinction between a Terrorist and an Insurgent. The Insurgent has "no ideals and will go to the person that is paying the most," they are motived by primal human needs, wants and desires. The terrorist (individuals) on the otherhand are nothing but an Ideology. They have such deeply held beliefs that they are considered radical, and extreme. They will not apostatize.
I say this to make the point that in order to create sustainability in Iraq, we must jumpstart the economy through a government work program for the men 18-45. It is the "Velocity of Money" that will solve the problems in Iraq.
Al Qaeda is the CIA's tool.
The Iraqi resistance does not and will not associate with them.
That being said, i think the real terrorists are the state terrorist imperialist occupiers.
Long live the resistance.
That's an opinion we don't get around here every day.
Line 1 - that's just wacky.
Line 2 - increasingly so! Anything more to say? Maybe in this forum?
Line 3 - where you sit is often where you stand
Line 4 - see #3. But one day when you're not resisting, what will you do?
When my grandfather fought and defeated the occupation of our country, he lived out the rest of his life in peace.
What's really wacky is your ignore the connections between the CIA and Osama bin ladin, just as you ignore the connections between the CIA and Saddam. Go watch your hate minute winston.
Where i stand is against injustice, whether it's near my seat or not. Thankyou.
Last edited by Thepartisan; 06-03-2007 at 03:01 AM.
I'm going to say the same thing to you as I have to others:
Your postings take on more meaning when we know where you're coming from. Update your profile and introduce yourself in the appropriate thread.
Until then you sound like a college student who is gunning for a history or drama major.
Example is better than precept.
I think the problem is that there are three groups:
- Insurgents: Fight to overthrow an existing order.
- Terrorists: Whatever they are fighting for (money, an idea, a religion, the creation of a state, etc.), their tactic is terror.
- Poor Schmuckatellis: Will fight for money or not to be killed by one of the former.
Insurgents can use terrorism, and terrorists can serve in an insurgency.
Insurgents most certainly can be committed to an ideal. Nationalism is one, and the Chinese Communists in WWII are a good example thereof.
Terrorists most certainly can be superficial bastards out for little more than personal gain.
Poor Schmuckatellis deserve our sympathy and assistance. They are the sea within which the first two fight, and if they are given the means to be resolute in their opposition to the latter two, and are given the means to thrive otherwise, the first two will be losers (or just the odd crackpots or criminals with which even the most successful societies must contend).
Hi Sargent,
On the whole, a good trichotomy! Let me toss in one final comment - the "Poor Schmuckatellis" also provide the next generations of both terrorists and insurgents. For me, it's not only about human decency and helping out someone who has bee shat on by fate - there is also a very rational, self-interest component to it .
Marc
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
So assassination makes the user an insurgent or a terrorist? What about a VBIED?
I don't think it's the tactics so much as the targets, and the attitude toward collateral damage. Blowing up an Iraqi Police station is an insurgent attack, where commiting atrocities on random civilians (market goers for example) is terrorism. Were the badguys in Iraq to limit their targets to ones acceptable under the Geneva Accords, I would buy their claims to being insurgents. But a lot of their targeting is aimed at opposing factions civilians, so they are terrorists who are worth less than the bullet they richly deserve. They'll make excuses, but it always comes back to "you did this, look what you made me do", a denial of responsibility for their actions. If they won't accept responsibility for their actions, you can't negotiate.
It's kind of like telling a kid "If you want to be treated like a grownup, you have to act like one". Partisans have a clear status under international law, but to merit that treatment, they have to live up to certain standards. The terrorists in Iraq haven't displayed a willingness to act like they deserve recognition as anything other than bandits.
Last edited by Van; 06-03-2007 at 02:23 PM. Reason: typo
Targeting collaborators is a completely legitimate thing. The geneva conventions doesn't have some clause against it.
And Why not? they target the resistance along side their american masters.
Traitors deserve to be executed. Traitors are more filthy scum than the mercinaries.
Assasinating the puppet leaders the americans set up, you act like it's a bad thing.
And just for the record, the resitsance would never hurt Iraqi civilians, the very people they are fighting for.
------The cell leaders themselves said they were guided by a blend of Islamist teachings and pan-Arab nationalism. Both spoke disdainfully of “Wahabbis,” as hard-line Sunni Muslim followers are called. Abu Mohammed said there was no contact with members of al Qaida at his level;
...
“Can you describe a man who defends his country as a terrorist?” asked Abu Abdullah, who said he was 31. “Iraq is the land of prophets and the birthplace of civilization. We will fight until we shed the last drop of our blood for this country.”
...
“We are Islamist in that we are protecting our religion. We are nationalist in that we are protecting our country,” Abu Mohammed said. “We don’t care about our lives. We care about the lives of our fellow Iraqis.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0913-08.htm
TDK was it...
If you're curious about who i am and where i come form, why don't you just ask nicely?Your postings take on more meaning when we know where you're coming from. Update your profile and introduce yourself in the appropriate thread.
But since i'm sure you won't, you'll just have to be patient and it will become apperant to you when i choose it to be.
So I would take this to mean that anyone in a market square killed by a car bomb was a collaborator or traitor? Is a teacher one as well? Or a doctor? Some of the insurgents may well be acting in what they feel is defense of their country, but I would also advise you to look closely at those who join their ranks and look at their actual goals. Not everyone who claims to be a patriot has the same objectives you profess. Many of the worst terrorist groups rode the coattails of true insurgent groups until they no longer had a need for their cover, then they turned on those who'd given them legitimacy and meaning. For them the killing became the main goal...all else was just a smoke screen. I would observe that many of the groups active in Iraq are already at least halfway down this slippery slope. If you are in fact a patriot, how do you propose to deal with those within your own ranks who have different goals?
"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
You must have missed this part .
One attack, he said, was scrapped at the last minute because a van carrying an Iraqi family pulled next to the targeted convoy and could have been hit by mistake. Typically, however, most attacks are carried out, and Iraqis who happen to be around are “sacrificed,” he said.
Example is better than precept.
This is pretty broad license. What rules of evidence are used to identify collaborators? Or is it anyone not actively resisting the opponents of the insurgency? If there is no due process or competent military targeting process, this is terrorism. Is the intent of targeting collaborators to neutralize a threat to security of the insurgency? If so, then this is the same as targeting a recon element. If the intent is to "send a message", or intimidate the civilian population into submission, it is terrorism. Is the insurgency keeping records so that it's leaders can be held to the same level of accountability that the insurgents would like to see President Bush held to?
I'm not saying this is the case, but reading both Western and Middle Eastern news sources, it appears that the various insurgent groups in Iraq are not prepared to hold themselves to the same standard they would like to see others held to. But this is not unique to Iraq, you see in virtually every small war, and frequently on both sides at the same time.
No, I did not say this, and if you got this impression, you misinterpreted my comments. Assassination is a tactic. Once an American acknowledges that the downing of Admiral Yamamoto's plane was a legitimate military operation, it is hypocrisy to repudiate assassination as a tactic of national power. Currently, popular opinion and political opinion in the U.S. is opposed to assassination on principle, but these people would say that the raid on ADM Yamamoto's plane was wrong if they were in possession of all the facts. But again, targeting, weapon selection, and intent. Is the target part of the military command and control structure, or the national government executive branch? Is the weapon to be used consciously selected to minimize collateral damage, and likely collateral damage been carefully assessed? Is the intent to directly degrade or disrupt the threat's military capabilities or other aspect of the apparatus that prosecutes the war? If it's yes to all three, it sounds like a legitimate targeting of a command and control node of the threat forces. Now if the insurgency says these things, then kills thirty bystanders and misses the target, or if the insurgency's intent is to intimidate members of the government or civilians, or to generate a media event, this is terrorism.
Frankly, nothing I've seen in the pro-insurgency media releases demonstrates these kind of processes. Not saying they're stupid, they're just not making an effort to concern themselves with international law, or looking beyond the perceptions of the Islamic world (but the insurgents and their supporters are so quick to accuse the West of the same failings...), and this is a short-sighted attitude. Perhaps the various insurgent groups should get together and demonstrate moral behavior superior to that of the West rather than murdering more of their own youth, women, and children, asIn case it's not obvious, "Assassination; History, Theory, and Practice" from American Public University System's (www.apus.edu) graduate program was one of the best courses I've taken in decades.the "Iraqis who happen to be around are “sacrificed.”
Mistakes and accidents can happen, especially when the occupiers frequently use people as shields. But it is never the intention of the resistance to hurt their own people, and it rarely ever happens. I've seen snipers not take shots because people are around. These are their families not yours. That said, an iraqi who is hanging around and discussing things with the occupation forces, is very suspicous and could be an informant.
This includes, anyone in the puppet army, puppet police and any other security apparatus. Anyone involved in the political arena, and any iraqi contracted interpreters, truck drivers are legitimate targets. The resistance is not a military organisation, it does not have on head or central leadership, so what you suggest is ridiculous and by your definition all resistance movements would be considered terrorists. The purpose of targeting collaboratrs is not only to neutralize a threat against the resistance but also to squash any form of controll aparatus that the occupiers might leave behind. Every government or military infustructure you painted in your colours must be dismembered, otherwise it would not be a complete victory. And beyond just strategy, and more on an emotional bases, traitors are just scum that deserve to die screaming, the fact that they still walk the earth just brings shame to the nation.This is pretty broad license. What rules of evidence are used to identify collaborators?
The answer is yes to all three. When some assasination attempt takes place against a puppet 'leader', the only "bystandards" that seem to get hurt, are the highered body guards, who are just mercinaries anyway. It's very frustring how you can get so many body guards and the target is still somehow unscathed. Like Chalabi's latest assasination attempt only a few weeks ago.If it's yes to all three,
You talk about terrorism and intimidating the population, let me ask you, was the siege against fallujah intended to crush the resistance, or was it intended to terrorise the population into submission. Because the Nazi's used the same sort of tactics against the french, when they saw any resistance from a town, they would demolish the town. Sound familiar? Where was your due process there?
If the fighters actually commit the crimes you accuse them of, then perhaps you would see punishment. For example Al Sadr just expelled 600 men from his forces because they where accused of secterianims. But as it were, those who plant bombs in market places and kill random people for no reason, are not the resistance, think logically, why would a resistance movement destroy the only thing that keeps it alive, a support base within the people? It's clear those who would benefit most are the occupation forces, and i wouldn't put it past MI5 and mossad. Sometimes they can act on their own accord and other times they may use a manipulated naive puppet. This fact is widely accepted among both civilians and resistance fighters. One need only look at history to see this is no conspiracy theory, these sort of tactics where used against Ireland and Vietnamn.
----------------
Is that an order?That's as nice as it gets. Even the casual drop in has seen me say this to about 60 people in the last month. You aren't being singled out. Check out the rest of the site, introduce yourself in the introduction thread,
Last edited by Thepartisan; 06-04-2007 at 07:23 AM.
Actually, just killing random Iraqis IS a tactic, as it destabilizes the polity and demonstrates that the government cannot protect its people. To assert otherwise is somewhat vacuous. You are also implying that there is "one" resistance with a unified goal. I would suggest that there is a large "layer cake" of insurgents/terrorists, a certain number of which would gladly sacrifice every Iraqi for their goals.
The coalition hides behind the population? That is some terrific Orwellian "spin" you have there. Though if the coalition could somehow pull that one off, I would applaud them. How can distinctly-marked and FOB-bound soldiers "hide" among the Iraqi populace?
Ridiculous! As if anyone beliefs the puppet regime exist to serve and protect the people in the first place! Why would the people need protecting from the resistance, the people need protecting from the occupiers and the puppet who seak to enslave them. And why would the resistance want to send people a message that they need to be protected from them? It's like saying "Our families in iraq, don't trust us, we are here to slaughter you all, go into the arms of the occupiers and turn us in whenever you can".
That's how you'd like to think of us isn't it, that we are all just blood thirsty inhuman barbarians that would kill our own flesh and blood just to make some gains. Like some badly written hollywood action film. How convenient for you.
Who ever beliefs this lives in a land of fantasy, All gorrilla movements cannot survive without the support of the people, it is the people who hide them and supply them, it is the people that keep a resistance alive.
----------------
Soldiers use children as human shields.
Bookmarks