How Insurgencies End

[Dayuhan]

THAT is the problem! Why are "Insurgencies" any different from any other form of conflict? It's moronic to assume that there is some distinct form of conflict, called an "insurgency" that some how is "different" from other forms of conflict.

Welcome to the wooly thinking that created FM3-24 and all the other "Insurgency" fiascos.

Part of the problem is that we seem to lack a functioning definition of what an insurgency is. If, for example, we define an insurgency as a populace or portion thereof fighting against is own government, we can point out some distinct features and some distinct possibilities, as such:

- People who fight their own government generally do so for reasons

- Sometimes those reasons are valid and understandable

- If the government can be convinced or compelled to resolve those reasons, it may be possible to end the insurgency without the need to go out and kill, destroy, and maim until the will of the insurgents is broken.

In short, insurgencies often happen because a government sucks, and in these case the easiest way to resolve the insurgency is not to kill all the insurgents but to improve the government.

I think these conclusions are perfectly valid. I know they can work, because I've seen them work. Unfortunately, I don't think they apply to Afghanistan, because that fight isn't about a populace or portion thereof fighting against is own government, it's about a portion of a populace fighting against an occupying foreign power.