Is an insurgent an insurgent?

[marct]

Hi Bob,

While all insurgents by any definition are the illegal actor; they are not always the wrong actor.

And not always and for everyone illegal either - JMM's listing of this a while back is a really good point to keep in mind.

As a related note, and one worth following up, many of the "insurgent" groups (and I'm using that term from our legal definitions) we are currently fighting have their own problems keeping their legal status. Remember all of the problems AQ had after 9/11 because they broke Sharia law by attacking civilians?

One of the things most people don't realize is that Sunni Islam is an extremely legalist religion, where "law" is the analog of Christian "theology" (not of Cannon law). "Jihad" can only be legally waged under certain specific conditions, and what actions may be taken during it are also subject to legal acceptance. Illegal acts can end with the perpetrator being declared as a "heretic" and cast out of the community, in effect destroying their source of legitimacy and their ability to hide in the population.

Meaning that sometimes the government has failed in some significant way and lost the support of the populace and is being sustained in power over them by either their own use of the state's power or the power of some protector state.

If by "failed" you include a failure to adapt to the changing culture of their citizens, then I would agree with you.

As Americans we must never forget that our founding cornerstone document as a nation, our Declaration of American Independence, boldly recoginzes both the RIGHT and the DUTY of any populace, not just ours, to rise up in insurgency when government fails. Powerful stuff. We like to think that the American Rebels were the good guys in that one. I suspect others might see it differently.

What can I say? As the descendent of United Empire Loyalists who fought against your rebel ancestors, that's never far from my mind !

It is when we let a relationship with some particular government that over time has slipped away from supporting its populace outweigh our commitment to our populace -based principles as a nation that we get into trouble.

Agreed. It gets even worse when you add in the morale effect of supporting a government that you philosophically oppose.

When said failed or failing government is perceived to draw its legitimacy not from the governed, but from US; this is the ripe field where AQ reaps its harvest. Conducting UW to convince these populaces that the path to good governance at home requires that they first break this source of external legitimacy over their dysfunctional goverment.

Not only AQ. Go back to the Wars of National Liberation and you see the same effect happening. It's a much better tactic to shift the diplomatic stance towards that government as a way of reducing the probability of that perception being accepted. That, however, can be quite difficult in some countries (e.g. Nigeria).