Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

[BRUZ_LEE]

Sir,

I believe based on what I have learned from the war and in my studies that there are fundamental and significant differences between insurgents and terrorists.

Not only in their motives and their Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTPs) but in our military response to each--how we fight.

I think a new string would be very helpful.

I think that you can't differentiate between insurgents and terrorists in that way.

Insurgency is in my opinion the overall term and encompasses all members of an insurgency movement. That is the Leaders, Theorists, Financers, Sponsors, Helpers, Computer-Experts, Media-Experts, Technicians, Bomb-Makers, Spies, ..... and of course the actual fighters. Among the fighters you may then find the terrorists, simply because Terror is a useful method insurgents use to achieve their goals.

This makes it also clear, that by military means alone you can't win against an insurgency movement, because it's made of more than just fighters and terrorists.

The fight against terrorists is therefore just a part in the fight against insurgents.

There are, of course, other terrorists as well, which are not related to an insurgency and which also can't be directly compared with insurgents one on one.

[Tom Odom]

I agree with Bruz Lee. My own experiences in Lebanon, Sudan, Turkey, and Rwanda as well as time as a regional and terrorist analyst makes any attempt to draw clear lines between terrorists and insurgents. Terrorism and terrorist are labels with variety of meanings attached. They are also a means or a tactic. And they are also a statement of intent.

Insurgent is somewhat better defined and perhaps clearer in the intent of its meaning. Even so there are great debates and I am sure you have heard them about whether or not someone is an iinsurgent or a wave of violence is an insurgency.

Because of the connotations and simultaneous spin associated with the term terrorists, I have over the years shifted to the word extremist.

Best

Tom

[marct]

Hi Folks,

In general, I agree with Tom and Bruz, but I do have a few cavils or caveats on that agreement (hey, I'm an academic, what did you expect? ).

First off, how be if we drop the personal forms and look at the group forms: "insurgency" and "terrorism". This makes it easier to examine since individuals may be affiliated with more than one group form.

Wikipedia defines an insurgency as "An insurgency, or insurrection, is an armed uprising, or revolt against an established civil or political authority." The OED defines insurgency as "The quality or state of being insurgent; the tendency to rise in revolt", an insurgent as "One who rises in revolt against constituted authority; a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent." and an "insurgence" as "The action of rising against authority; a rising, revolt." (personally, I always preferred the OED).

So, the core relational meanings of the term are:

1. a "rise", "uprising", "revolt", "rebellion"
2. against "authority"; defined as "an established civil or political authority" in Wikipedia and as "constituted authority" or just "authority" in the OED.
3. with the implication of conflict; defined as armed revolt in wikepedia, undefined in the OED.

The relationship is between two groups, #s 1 & 2 and takes the form of 3.

Let's look at the groups in this little social drama. A "rise", "uprising", "revolt", "rebellion" against "authority" (of some type). The implication of this is fairly obvious, group 1 lacks "authority" that is held by group 2. As such, an "insurgency" implies a redefinition of "authority" between the two groups.

Let's look at the relationship (#3) next. In its broadest form, the OED definitions, it does not state the type of authority other than "constituted". This means that the authority relationship is, in all probability, housed in some type of institution: political, military, religious, academic, familial, etc.

As to the specific tactics of such an insurgency, the OED only uses the phrase "a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent". Now, the definition of "belligerent" is crucial to this - "A nation, party, or person waging regular war (recognized by the law of nations)" [n] and "Waging or carrying on regular recognized war; actually engaged in hostilities" [adj]. Now this certainly implies armed revolt, but I would also point out that conflictual metaphors are common in many non-kinetic conflicts. More importantly, note the use of terms such as "regular war" and "regular recognized war". This implies the existence of rules of combat, and these rules can exist only within institutions. For example,our current "Rules of Warfare" derive from the Treaty of Westphalia. Notice, however, that all institutions have specific rules of "conflict" (broadly construed), and hat all the OED definitions really say is that an insurgency is characterized by tactics that stand outside of the "accepted" (socially contracted) rules of conflict within the institution.

Okay, let's shift to "Terrorism":

• from Wikipedia - "Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against civilians by groups or persons for political or other ideological goals."
• from the OED - "A system of terror", "Government by intimidation as directed and carried out by the party in power in France during the Revolution of 1789-94; the system of the ‘Terror’ (1793-4)", "A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted; the employment of methods of intimidation; the fact of terrorizing or condition of being terrorized".

Terrorism is a specific "social contract" or system. The term was originally coined in France - "terrorisme (1798 in Dict. Acad., Suppl.)" - and referred to the system put into place by Robespierre. It is systemic and aimed by one group against another - originally by a government against its citizens, later by any group advocating political or ideological goals and choosing to use these tactics. Originally, this tactic took place within a social contract, but that seems to have dropped from the definition fairly quickly.

So, back to definitions: an "insurgency" is an attempt to redefine power / authority relationships within an institution, while "terrorism" is a specific tactic or system employed by one group against another to achieve specificf ends.

Marc

[jcustis]

And when a bad guy pulls out his weapon to participate in an RPG party against a wayward convoy one day, and then drives an explosive-laden Caprice Classic into a crowded market the next (under directives from a centralized cmd) he can be both, depending upon interpretation.

Semantics aside, they are both bad, and both need to be dispatched with careful precision.

[BRUZ_LEE]

...they are both bad, and both need to be dispatched with careful precision.

If you are fighting a simple terrorist without popular backing than you are right.

If you are talking about a terrorist-fighter within an insurgency movement it can be better not to kill him (i think that is what you mean by "dispatching") but to get him over to your side. Than you get the most valuable Actionable Intelligence you can get and you may be able to drain the insurgency.

[Steve Blair]

I would also add a geographic component to the discussion. Insurgents tend to operate in (or near) the region they are rising against/in, while terrorists (in the classic sense) are trans-national. They operate where and when they can. The contention that terrorists have a centralized command structure is also something of a misnomer. They can and do operate as independent units without a central command aside from a shared ideology, while insurgents can have a central command structure.

It's also important to mark a difference between a terrorist and terrorist-like methods. Insurgencies can use terrorism as a weapon, but they are not classic terrorists in my view. Insurgents have a geographic focus or base of operations, while terrorists can, but do not have to.

I think the confusion arises because terrorism is a tool as well as a group naming methodology. One can use terroristic tactics without being a terrorist, and this applies to insurgents and organized crime elements alike.

There are a number of other differences as well, but I'd need to organize my thoughts a bit better. Perhaps the biggest (to me) lies in the realm of legitimacy or perceived legitimacy. Insurgents often have (or can present themselves to have) legitimate and justified complaints against the regime existing in their region (usually tied to concrete and achievable changes or goals), while a terrorist group may have a political/ideological "goal" or "statement," but its objectives are usually Utopian or unachievable. By the second generation, most groups use these "goals" simply to justify more killing and bloodshed, and they become more nebulous and unattainable. Tom's use of extremist is good, but that term also does not convey the level of violence that a fully mature terrorist group can and will use.

Because of the political nature of many terrorist groups, you will often find disenchanted members joining an insurgency, or even providing training to such groups.

[marct]

Hi Folks,

'fraid we can't "leave the semantics aside" JC . "Semantics" = "meaning", and if we don't have some solid, agreed upon meanings, then we might as well just say "let's kill all the bad guys" (yeah, I know, Bubba says "YEAH!"). Besides that, the more accurate we are in our terms, the more likely we are to be able to use them to produce accurate models that will generate a "win" situation. "Semantics is your FRIEND!"

I would also add a geographic component to the discussion. Insurgents tend to operate in (or near) the region they are rising against/in, while terrorists (in the classic sense) are trans-national. They operate where and when they can. The contention that terrorists have a centralized command structure is also something of a misnomer. They can and do operate as independent units without a central command aside from a shared ideology, while insurgents can have a central command structure.

Generally I'd agree with you on this, Steve. I think that it may be importan to note that what bis really important is the "authority relationship" that is the basis for an insurgency. Certainly, in the past, this has meant that insurgencies had to operate geographically but, would suggest, that not all of them do now what with rapid global communications. A "community of practice" can exist globally and so, in my mind, can an insurgency.

It's also important to mark a difference between a terrorist and terrorist-like methods. Insurgencies can use terrorism as a weapon, but they are not classic terrorists in my view. Insurgents have a geographic focus or base of operations, while terrorists can, but do not have to.

I think the confusion arises because terrorism is a tool as well as a group naming methodology. One can use terroristic tactics without being a terrorist, and this applies to insurgents and organized crime elements alike.

Absolutely!

There are a number of other differences as well, but I'd need to organize my thoughts a bit better. Perhaps the biggest (to me) lies in the realm of legitimacy or perceived legitimacy. Insurgents often have (or can present themselves to have) legitimate and justified complaints against the regime existing in their region (usually tied to concrete and achievable changes or goals), while a terrorist group may have a political/ideological "goal" or "statement," but its objectives are usually Utopian or unachievable. By the second generation, most groups use these "goals" simply to justify more killing and bloodshed, and they become more nebulous and unattainable. Tom's use of extremist is good, but that term also does not convey the level of violence that a fully mature terrorist group can and will use.

Because of the political nature of many terrorist groups, you will often find disenchanted members joining an insurgency, or even providing training to such groups.

I'll look forward to those thoughts

Marc

[Mondor]

'fraid we can't "leave the semantics aside" JC . "Semantics" = "meaning

Last time I heard this was at a data modeling meeting. One government type complained that one of our SMEs was "harping on about semantics". Which was funny as the entire point of a data model is agreeing on the meaning of things.

On the terrorist V. insurgent argument I have always been a bit troubled when we treat these words as synonyms. The Germans actually issued an order directing everyone to refer to the French resistance as terrorists. An insurgent is not necessarily a terrorist nor is a terrorist necessarily an insurgent.

All military forces have used tactics to frighten its opponents. The use of a siege or the naval blockade of Germany in WWI and the very real fear of starvation could arguably be called a terrorist tactic. But only in the case that it causes fear in the target audience and will cause them to change their behavior (oops, my Psyop is showing). Yet a naval blockade is a legitimate tactic.

In a case more relevant today, the fear that ones house could be destroyed by a PGM or other bomb, with ones family in it, because insurgents are using your neighbors house to operate out of can be a cause of terror. This is not to say that bombing enemy C2 installations is a terrorist tactic, but it can cause terror.

I would think that it is the intent of the attack that differentiates between a legitimate military action and a terrorist attack. Of course that begs the question of defining intent.

[Stan]

I would also add a geographic component to the discussion.

I can better relate to Steve's recent posting, but Bruz, Marc, and Tom hit home equally well.

I can comment on insurgents from an African and later Estonian point of view.

Where Tom would end up for his last tour in paradise, there were basically two factions, and the outcome was fairly clear. But in Zaire, there were more than 400 tribes. Even though only a handful were more powerful, they still were unable to convice the rest to go along. Intimidation or religious belief was not nearly enough. The money was worthless, so that's out. Exactly what's left ?

In Estonia the insurgents are all now deep into politics. Much like Zaire, the parties and beliefs vary to the point, that it makes the whole process to complicated and only a civil war would break the tie.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but if you have 400 factions that all have a different view on things, how then would say one of the 400 create an effective uprising (insurgency), if the other 399 didn't care ?

It is geography as Steve put so well. Perhaps the Arab insurgents use the Americans to gain momentum and create a stir. That won't work where I am now as well as in Sub-Sahara. The Africans hated the Belg and French, but you still could not get all 400 tribes to agree.

Regards, Stan

[Steve Blair]

There are, in my view, some basic differences between a terrorist and an insurgent. As mentioned before, to my way of thinking the first of these is geography. I also view both terms as neutral in the great scheme of things. There can, from some perspectives, be “good” terrorists and “bad” insurgents, as well as the reverse.

I don't deny the impact of “global community” thought with this, but the relationship between “struggle with authority” (however that may be defined) and a group based on a particular tribe or local issue is to me at the heart of an insurgency. Once it begins leaving local borders, and takes on the trappings of the “global community,” it may well cross into a trans-national insurgency or terrorism. To be more precise, it may become a trans-national insurgent group or terrorist group. I make a distinction between terrorist tactics and methods (terrorism) and groups that practice terrorism.

The base of a typical insurgency remains geographic. While they may solicit outside support and assistance, their goals remain reasonably local (nationalized land holdings, revoking nationalized land holdings, correction of perceived or real social wrongs, and so on). If outsiders can help attain those goals, or distract the local “powers that be,” an insurgent group will use them. I would also argue that while some insurgent groups may have a loose command and control network (although this is not always the case), they still feel responsible to a fixed goal or vision. This is also something that can be easily measured (like the goals mentioned before). Tribal insurgencies, as Stan points out, may have issues getting off the ground, but each tribe remains fairly fixed in its goals and objectives. By this measure, groups like ETA may actually straddle the fence between terrorists and insurgents.

This geographic focus also places, to my view, some limits on the methods an insurgency can employ. These limits are determined more by their base constituency or recruiting pool, and not so much by outside considerations. For example, an insurgency would lose momentum if it continually committed atrocities against its own core population (this is, of course, assuming that the insurgency is not being controlled by others and used for their own ends...my thought here is the Viet Cong by about 1965, although the transition could have taken place earlier). Once they take that step, they become more committed to terrorist methods and the basic profile changes.

Terrorists, on the other hand, have goals and objectives that cannot be easily measured or attained (bringing Ireland under a Socialist/Marxist/whatever government, for example). For them geography is a consideration but not a focus. Also, these groups tend to spin out of control over time, becoming much more hazy in their goals and more violent in their methods. They become, in short, addicted to the killing (their own methods) and less focused on what those methods are supposed to achieve. Some insurgencies (like the ETA, the Khmer Rouge, and others) transition into terrorist groups as their goals become less clear and their methods more violent and less focused.

To me, a trans-national insurgency runs the very real risk of becoming a terrorist group because they lose that geographic focus. One of the first signs of a terrorist group spinning out of control is the conversion to a more hazy political or socio-political goal. “Global Community”-type insurgencies would be especially vulnerable to this, as their leadership would be dispersed and more open to influence by more radical (or extremist) elements. And once they start shedding their self-imposed limits, they run the real risk of falling into the classic terrorist spiral of violence.

Just some slightly more organized thoughts...

[Thepartisan]

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.