Actually I would like to disagree with the notion that there is not a clear line of demarcation between crime and insurgency. I think once we look at all the salient features that distinguish insurgency we can see that it takes on a sufficiently different character from that of gang warfare to merit completely different modes of thought.
First off the United States Department of Defense (DOD) defines insurgency as "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict." 1
The two main aspects of the definition insurgency that we should consider are that it is politically motivated and to attain it's political ends it resorts to warfare - as opposed to organized movements that use peaceful processes to engender a bloodless coup.
Warfare must neccessarily be thought of "as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities." 2
This political aspect is such a defining characteristic of an insurgency that it is a sufficient and neccessary condition of it.
The activities of these Bloods and Crips generally does not resemble the activites of insurgents in any meaningful way to warrant an analogy, it is the difference between Latrunculi and Legitimus hostis.
Bookmarks