Sanctuary (or perhaps just area) denial operations at the Afghanistan village level

[marct]

Hi Bob,

2 points, then I am signing off to focus on more pressing items.

1. Yes the movement in Thailand is an insurgency. The percentage of the populace is small, but the issues of poor governance that are perceived by the geographically concentrated Muslim populace are pervasive in that community.

Personally, I think this is playing definition games. I have no problem with that, but it's always a good idea to be up front about it since I have a feeling that definitions, and how they are constructed and used, are at the heart of much of the apparent "disagreements" with your model.

Broadly speaking, there are three major types of definitions:

1. "Crisp" definitions of the either / or type. Usually based in some form of nomonological-deductive model, they are "certain" or "yes/no" types. As a note, people tend to us this form most often even if they have no idea if it is the correct form for when and where they are using it. Take a look at the accuracy of eyewitness testimony for an example of this .
2. "Fuzzy" or probabilistic definitions. These are usually presented either as probabilities - e.g. "I'm pretty sure it's an insurgency; say 80% - or, much less likely but more accurately, "it has certain characteristics in common with accepted definitions of insurgency, but several that are either not there or only in minimal form".
3. Plausible definitions. These tend to be used when people are trying to figure out concepts, constructs and just what they should be looking for. So, for example, if you were to look at the case of various and sundry national liberation movements in Quebec during the past 50 years, why didn't an open insurgency develop? All of the hallmarks were there: a distinct culture, poor governance, a different language and religion (on the whole), popular support for separation, etc.

Normally, all of these definitions tend to be used together but towards different ends so, for example, when you are talking about the Thai insurgency

If 5% of a county's populace perceives it is not receiving good governance and they are dispersed across that country, you don't have much likelihood of insurgency. Note also that the Thai insurgency is what I would classify as a separatist insurgency. They don't want to change the entire country, they recognize that is unlikely and want to be released. If the Thai government wants to resolve it they need to either annex of that chunk of land and resident populace; or address the issues giving rise to the perceptions of poor governance.

What this indicates to me is that you are dealing with a whole slew of different concepts. Pulling them apart, you've got

1. a rough model relating to the likelihood of an insurgency happening that draws on size of the group and dispersion of the group at a purely geographic level.
2. you switch levels between a nation state and a local community, and
3. you ascribe motivation back to perceptions of poor governance.

Now, the issue of governance is, as I think we would all agree, tricky. My suspicion is that the motivation is only partly related to the quality of the governance and much more related to the perception of the legitimacy of the governance. Key point here is that you appear to be conflating "good", which is qualitative and probabilistic, with "legitimate" which tends to be more "crisp".

Quirky little movements rise and fade, or persevere in their quirky little communities, but never burst into insurgency regardless of the strength of ideology or the dynamicism of leadership when embedded within a populace that is generally experiencing good governance. These things are ever present in all societies. It is only when governance fails that the medium is created within a populace for such sparks to ignite into a conflagration. (emphasis added)

Now, that "never" is a crisp definition. Really? How about the American Revolution? What it comes down to again is definitions and you appear, to be using a tautology on "good" where if an insurgency happens then it must have been due to "not good" governance.

Lastly, while I have fielded several "I don't agrees", a few "I don't think sos" and a couple of "what about's"; no one to my knowledge has put on the table a single example of a single insurgency that does not fit within my construct. I've been looking for such examples diligently myself, but to no avail.

If you are looking for an example, try Algeria which had a very low initial support for the insurgency there. If you want another example, check out the various Jacobin revolts; the motivation has to do more with legitimacy than with effectiveness of governance structures. I would also strongly urge you to look at cases where they have crappy governance, and yet don't have a continuing situation of insurgency. Basically, what I am getting at is that you need a really good definition of "governance" that is probabilistic rather than crisp.

But I'm not here to argue, I have been here in the pursuit of thinking that will help preserve my nation and aid it in the pursuit of its interests in a manner that are not perceived as onerous to those around her.

No worries, Bob . Some day, we need to get a bunch of us together in a convivial intellectual setting (aka a bar or brew pub), and really try to thrash out a decent "fuzzy" model of this - I'll buy the first round .

Cheers,

Marc