Insurgency vs. Civil War

[jmm99]

Near the start of this thread, Wilf asked:

Why differentiate? What purpose does it serve?

It certainly does not so far as the GCs are concerned. They are based on whether there is an "armed conflict" and whether that "armed conflict" is "international" or not.

The major differentiation in application of the GCs hinges on whether the 1977 AP I and II have been adopted, along with other treaties and "customary international humanitarian law", or not (as in the case of the US).

Of course, even where only the 1949 GCs have been adopted, a country can, for military and political reasons (as the US has done) adopt ROEs and RUFs far more restrictive than what its Laws of War would allow. Just for fun, compare what FM 27-10 would allow for those rules vs what they actually are.

So, why should we want to distinguish between an "insurgency" and a "civil war" ? In what areas do advantages accrue depending on whether the "armed conflict" is called an "insurgency" or a "civil war" ?

Regards

Mike

[ryanmleigh]

I think we do better when we look at insurgency as a set of conditions that may well manifest in several forms: a miserable populace that does not dare act out; a populace that does act out - either choosing non-violent (subversion) or violent (insurgency) means. The key to effective COIN is to address the conditions and not merely set out to defeat those who dare to respond to the conditions.

Bob- Would you say that these root conditions are the same for either civil war or insurgency? Or are there different conditions that lead to different forms of warfare. I imagine that the initial conditions (personnel, equipment, funding) would have an impact on the way the conflict progresses.

Therefore I would also think that there may be different root causes of conflict which make it look, smell, or be an insurgency vice a civil war. Examining the root causes then would be one way to differentiate between the two forms of conflict. Wouldn't you agree?

[ryanmleigh]

I'll stick to my point that insurgency is a strategy, and a given protagonist may shift in and out of it. I think we befuddle ourselves when we try and define insurgency by its political objectives. We just can't transcend our obsession with the Cold War security environment.

Sir- Is insurgency really a strategy, or is it more just a tactic in the conduct of war? Maybe an operational approach in the broader context? Probably just confusing myself.

For me it seems like an insurgency would be the way, while terrorism, subversion, guerrilla warfare would be the means to conduct achieve political objectives.

If there is no political objective other than the overthrow of a government, would it not then be a civil war? Maybe I am just misguided.

[ryanmleigh]

Not one of my big areas of expertise, but I would say that it began as something like an insurgency based on religion (with the inevitable cultural overtones) and then grew into a civil war and finally became a world war (of sorts, anyhow).

Sir- Your explanation again takes me back to a sliding scale of violence in conflict. With steps along the way. With insurgency residing somewhere near the bottom, and civil war higher on the steps along the way. Would you agree?

[ryanmleigh]

IMO that is about the best definition you can get. I would add if it is two opposing groups of "citizens"(legal residents) inside the same Geographic boundary or country, it will usually be viewed as Civil War. But as John points out whenever an External power/group "non-citizens" comes into the picture it will tend to be called an Insurgency.

The very term Insurgency is rather nebulous because it often depends on the viewpoint you have as to who is the good guy or bad guy. I have often thought that term was invented because it is more Politically acceptably to use that term as opposed to calling it some type of War(Civil or Un-Civil).

So the introduction of an (outside the state) third party would help to distinguish an insurgency from a civil war. Otherwise, any number of parties inside a state fighting for control over the people would be a civil war?

[slapout9]

So the introduction of an (outside the state) third party would help to distinguish an insurgency from a civil war. Otherwise, any number of parties inside a state fighting for control over the people would be a civil war?

Yes, the tricky part is national boundaries were often drawn by imperial/colonial powers,in which case the indigenous populations may not recognize these boundaries in any real sense. So you could have a civil war/insurgency at the same time.

Example the Taliban are Pashtun....half live in Afghanistan and half live in Pakistan and IMO they don't really care about any border drawn by some foreign power,it is Pashtunastan to them. That as why I think it is much better to understand them in terms of "Bands of Guerrillas in the mist" as opposed to Insurgency/Civil War. Just my 2 cents.

[ryanmleigh]

All- some more to chew on. This came from Dr. Sambanis at Yale who is also a leading civil war scholar who has worked with Drs. Collier and Hoeffler on multiple projects. He wrote "A reasonable way to distinguish between civil war and insurgency is to think of insurgency as a strategy that can be used in a civil war and civil war can be the term that describes a conflict that engages the majority of the population (by contrast, an insurgency might be a strategy pursued by a small group with relatively low levels of public support). As you know, there is no consensus on the definition of these concepts, but a distinction such as the one I suggest might help you support your claim that different interventions/policies can be effective in countering insurgency vs. civil war."
Anyone with more thoughts?

[slapout9]

All- some more to chew on. This came from Dr. Sambanis at Yale who is also a leading civil war scholar who has worked with Drs. Collier and Hoeffler on multiple projects. He wrote "A reasonable way to distinguish between civil war and insurgency is to think of insurgency as a strategy that can be used in a civil war and civil war can be the term that describes a conflict that engages the majority of the population (by contrast, an insurgency might be a strategy pursued by a small group with relatively low levels of public support).

Don't understand why size has much to do with it. In the end the Government is overthrown either by a small group or a large group.

[ryanmleigh]

That is very similar to the question I asked him back. He implies that there is some connection to the amount of popular support. He has not responded back to me yet. Could it have something to do with an insurgency using only guerrilla and UW tactics, while a civil war might have uniformed armies using full spectrum of tactics to win? I am not sure if that simplifies or confuses the discussion.

[slapout9]

while a civil war might have uniformed armies using full spectrum of tactics to win?

That is why I say a civil war can only happen inside the defined boundaries of a nation. If it is inside a nation it doesn't matter if they are uniformed or guerrillas or a mixture, it is still citizens using armed revolt to overthrow THEIR government. What changes it and is a useful for understanding the situation is when an outside influence enters the picture. Civil Wars can be decided completely internally. Insurgencies will have to be decided by somehow dealing with external support (Afghanistan and Pakistan as a modern example.)

[wmthomson]

Insurgencies will have to be decided by somehow dealing with external support (Afghanistan and Pakistan as a modern example.)

Are you suggesting that one defining characteristic of insurgencies is outside support, that the must necessarily have it to be an insurgence?

[slapout9]

Are you suggesting that one defining characteristic of insurgencies is outside support, that the must necessarily have it to be an insurgence?

Yes, if that element is not there then I think you have a civil war.

[wmthomson]

It would seem that if you assign to an Insurgency the unique attribute of requiring outside support (which is a very interesting idea) then size plays an important role in differentiating the two, in that, outside support is only really sought for two reasons, a lack of material or ideological support internally. Either way they are both the result of not having enough popular support internally to maintain the fighting force or recruit enough fighters. This necessary minimum level of internal support to sustain the fight might be what Dr. Sambanis is getting at when he talks about size and having popular support etc.

This leads me to thinking (and this may have already been discussed) that perhaps the difference between Civil war and Insurgency is as simple as an insurgency is just a conflict that has not reached the maturity, or minimum sustainability, required of a civil war. They both exist on a spectrum of conflict resulting from internal discontent, one is just further along then the other if you will.

[slapout9]

It would seem that if you assign to an Insurgency the unique attribute of requiring outside support (which is a very interesting idea) then size plays an important role in differentiating the two, in that, outside support is only really sought for two reasons, a lack of material or ideological support internally. Either way they are both the result of not having enough popular support internally to maintain the fighting force or recruit enough fighters. This necessary minimum level of internal support to sustain the fight might be what Dr. Sambanis is getting at when he talks about size and having popular support etc.

This leads me to thinking (and this may have already been discussed) that perhaps the difference between Civil war and Insurgency is as simple as an insurgency is just a conflict that has not reached the maturity, or minimum sustainability, required of a civil war. They both exist on a spectrum of conflict resulting from internal discontent, one is just further along then the other if you will.

My viewpoint is old school I remember when the Soviet Union said they were going to export Revolution (Insurgency) around the world. In traditional Marxist form they infiltrated foreign agitators to exploit political,economic and social(class) contradictions to start revolutions. They would be happy with a large force revolution or a Coup De' ta (spelling) small force didn't matter much to them. But the key factor was a foreign power(dosen't have to be a state) exporting insurgency(revolution).

[ryanmleigh]

The form, function, and tactics employed in an insurgency are what typically qualify it in some manner as one of the many terms we hear applied to it. Thus, if the purpose of the insurgency is to replace an existing sociopolitical order, it is revolutionary in nature. If the insurgent units are small bands employing unconventional tactics, it is guerrilla warfare. In discussing this problem, Samuel Huntington remarked, satirically, “No doubt each term serves some purpose, although one cannot help but feel that semantics has perhaps outstripped theory.” If the insurgents are illegitimately using violence against the population, then it is terrorism. All of these terms are still applicable to an insurgency; these terms just become qualifying descriptors of the conflict.

[ryanmleigh]

In his article entitled “What is Civil War? Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition,” Dr. Samabanis provides a distinctive and useful definition of civil war. The essence of his definition clarifies some of the general confusion surrounding classifications of armed conflict. Therefore, if armed conflict meets the following benchmarks, the conflict in question is determined to be a civil war:
(a) The war takes place within the territory of a state that is a member of the international system with a population of 500,000 or greater.
(b) The parties involved in the conflict (incumbent and challenger) have political and military organizational structures, and they have publicly stated political objectives.
(c) The government (through its military or militias) must be a principal combatant. The main insurgent organization must be locally represented and recruit locally.
(d) Throughout its duration, the conflict must be characterized by sustained violence, at least at the minor or intermediate level.
(e) Throughout the war, the weaker party must be able to mount effective resistance.

There are more of these benchmarks in the article, but they have to do more with onset and conclusion of conflict than in trying to differentiate between the two. Again, here Dr. Sambanis intermixes the terms civil war and insurgency. I believe it has to do with his understanding of the scale of conflict being a decisive factor in separating the two.

[slapout9]

The form, function, and tactics employed in an insurgency are what typically qualify it in some manner as one of the many terms we hear applied to it. Thus, if the purpose of the insurgency is to replace an existing sociopolitical order, it is revolutionary in nature. If the insurgent units are small bands employing unconventional tactics, it is guerrilla warfare.

Yes, but guerrilla units do not have to be small they could be very large. They just want wear uniforms and use conventional tactics or weapons.

[slapout9]

In the end this is what I believe. JFK speech at West Point......it's all Special Warfare.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WSHV...eature=related

[jmm99]

not Dr Samabanis (you got it right the second time around). Here's the CV for Nicholas Sambanis, Yale University, Department of Political Science. He's a known factor in the study of "Civil war" from the standpoint of political science, not law.

That's not my field of expertise - quantitative political science; and my questions remain unanswered - which is fine. Bye-bye.

[Rex Brynen]

In his article entitled “What is Civil War? Conceptual and Empirical Complexities of an Operational Definition,” Dr. Samabanis provides a distinctive and useful definition of civil war. The essence of his definition clarifies some of the general confusion surrounding classifications of armed conflict.

For those who might want the fuller citation (and the full-text, if you have a subscription to the Journal of Conflict Resolution), you'll find it here.