Insurgency in the 21st Century

[selil]

Need a writing partner?

[Abu Buckwheat]

Need a writing partner?

You need to make this a SWJ Group project!

[marct]

You need to make this a SWJ Group project!

I've got to agree with that one !

Just out of interest, Steve, are you using Kilculen's work on complexity in insurgencies? It strikes me that it is the best currently available model.

Marc

[SteveMetz]

I've got to agree with that one !

Just out of interest, Steve, are you using Kilculen's work on complexity in insurgencies? It strikes me that it is the best currently available model.

Marc

What specifically are you referring to? Dave and I generally think very much alike so I find his stuff very useful. I continue to berate my boss for SSI not publishing his global counterinsurgency piece (despite my strong recommendation). He actually gave it to us first.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

Actually, I've been trying the same method I used for my dissertation: when I go to bed at night, I leave the manuscript and some tiny little cookies and thimbles of milk out on my desk and hope that elves come in the darkness and finish it for me.

That worked before: much of my dissertation reads like it was written by elves on a serious sugar buzz.

LOLOL You're more likely to get brownies than elves with that ! Anyway, after having seen your monster barbeque, I suspect that you have way too much cold iron around for that to work !

What specifically are you referring to? Dave and I generally think very much alike so I find his stuff very useful. I continue to berate my boss for SSI not publishing his global counterinsurgency piece (despite my strong recommendation). He actually gave it to us first.

That's the one I had in mind specifically. I think it is a really good framework, especially part 3.

Marc

[Mark O'Neill]

Hi Steve,



LOLOL You're more likely to get brownies than elves with that ! Anyway, after having seen your monster barbeque, I suspect that you have way too much cold iron around for that to work !



That's the one I had in mind specifically. I think it is a really good framework, especially part 3.

Marc

One day I hope that people who support the 'global insurgency' theory can explain to me:

1. Which accepted school of International relations theory they subscribe to that accommodates this theory. Realism certainly does not, nor does any theory that acknowledges or accepts an essentially anarchic global system.

2. What is the "global" order that the "global insurgents" are trying to overthrow? (Does one assume that they are intuitively neo-rationalists? How does that accord with the fact that many of the commentators who support the theory actually decry the UN, International Law and the liberal interpretations of relations between sovereign states?)

3. How can we can have a 'global' insurgency of Islamists,that actually is not global?

As someone who spent awhile(ok, I am slow) in getting my masters in international relations, I have a bit of an issue when historians, anthropologists, sociologists and any other bloody 'ologists' (and the plain ignorant) all of a sudden start offering theories that impinge upon IR theory without clearly having the faintest clue about the subject.

end rant.

[Steve Blair]

One day I hope that people who support the 'global insurgency' theory can explain to me:

1. Which accepted school of International relations theory they subscribe to that accommodates this theory. Realism certainly does not, nor does any theory that acknowledges or accepts an essentially anarchic global system.

2. What is the "global" order that the "global insurgents" are trying to overthrow? (Does one assume that they are intuitively neo-rationalists? How does that accord with the fact that many of the commentators who support the theory actually decry the UN, International Law and the liberal interpretations of relations between sovereign states?)

3. How can we can have a 'global' insurgency of Islamists,that actually is not global?

As someone who spent awhile(ok, I am slow) in getting my masters in international relations, I have a bit of an issue when historians, anthropologists, sociologists and any other bloody 'ologists' (and the plain ignorant) all of a sudden start offering theories that impinge upon IR theory without clearly having the faintest clue about the subject.

end rant.

This is one of the reasons I get hung up on semantics. I'm one of those "quaint old folks" (well...not really old...not quaint...ok, stubborn bastards) who thinks there is a difference between insurgents and terrorists. To me, the core difference is that insurgents have viable goals and adversaries. Terrorists do not. Their entire construct is aimed at killing and general destabilization. Nothing more. However, the framework of insurgency (especially a "global insurgency") gives terrorists cover and a certain legitimacy they might not otherwise enjoy. I don't buy into the GWOT structure, but I do think there are distinct differences between insurgents and terrorists and that those differences are important.

end rant.

[SteveMetz]

One day I hope that people who support the 'global insurgency' theory can explain to me:

1. Which accepted school of International relations theory they subscribe to that accommodates this theory. Realism certainly does not, nor does any theory that acknowledges or accepts an essentially anarchic global system.

2. What is the "global" order that the "global insurgents" are trying to overthrow? (Does one assume that they are intuitively neo-rationalists? How does that accord with the fact that many of the commentators who support the theory actually decry the UN, International Law and the liberal interpretations of relations between sovereign states?)

3. How can we can have a 'global' insurgency of Islamists,that actually is not global?

As someone who spent awhile(ok, I am slow) in getting my masters in international relations, I have a bit of an issue when historians, anthropologists, sociologists and any other bloody 'ologists' (and the plain ignorant) all of a sudden start offering theories that impinge upon IR theory without clearly having the faintest clue about the subject.

end rant.

I've never thought of "global insurgency" as a theory of international relations, but as a strategy adopted by a non-state organization. I guess the "global order" that they are trying to "overthrow" is the political/economic hieararchy in which advanced, non-Islamic states dominate the world. And I don't think the word "global" means that they are in every nook and cranny of the world. We spoke of "global communism" even though they didn't literally operate everywhere. (We didn't allow any in South Carolina, for instance).

[mike sullivan]

Mark: I always had the feeling that “Global Insurgency” and “GWOT” were place holders for things people did not fully understand but wanted everyone to know that they did and something was being done about it.

Interesting set of questions though . . . especially #1 <<Which accepted school of International relations theory they subscribe to that accommodates this theory.(Global Insurgency)>> You might know this better than I, but I think much of the IR theory has been advanced by Western thinkers. If so, “Global Insurgencies” aka, ideologies radiating out of the Middle East may not fit a current theory. I am not an IR guy so don't spank me if I am off. If I am on – then there is your PhD dissertation.

[SteveMetz]

Need a writing partner?

Actually, I've been trying the same method I used for my dissertation: when I go to bed at night, I leave the manuscript and some tiny little cookies and thimbles of milk out on my desk and hope that elves come in the darkness and finish it for me.

That worked before: much of my dissertation reads like it was written by elves on a serious sugar buzz.