Exit Strategies

[tequila]

Old, old joke. I got told that one by my company gunny in boot camp. He was so salty he actually liked the MRE omelette.

"MRE = Meals Refusing to Exit."

I can't really imagine al-Qaeda holding a victory parade, but Hizbullah? Certainly. They have been the de facto government of the Lebanese south for years and already constitute something of a Shia state-within-a-state. If they were to go head up vs the Lebanese army (or rather what would remain of the Lebanese army without its Shia enlisted), I wouldn't bet against them.

[SteveMetz]

Old, old joke. I got told that one by my company gunny in boot camp. He was so salty he actually liked the MRE omelette.

"MRE = Meals Refusing to Exit."

I can't really imagine al-Qaeda holding a victory parade, but Hizbullah? Certainly. They have been the de facto government of the Lebanese south for years and already constitute something of a Shia state-within-a-state. If they were to go head up vs the Lebanese army (or rather what would remain of the Lebanese army without its Shia enlisted), I wouldn't bet against them.

But the state-within-a-state idea is the kicker. That wasn't normally what Cold War era insurgencies wanted. We kind of conceptualize the outcome as either the regime in control of the whole country or the insurgents. Should we adjust our conceptualization (and strategy and doctrine) for insurgents who only want control of part of the country? There are a lot of them, from FARC to, potentially, AQI

[selil]

But the state-within-a-state idea is the kicker. That wasn't normally what Cold War era insurgencies wanted. We kind of conceptualize the outcome as either the regime in control of the whole country or the insurgents. Should we adjust our conceptualization (and strategy and doctrine) for insurgents who only want control of part of the country? There are a lot of them, from FARC to, potentially, AQI

What about insurgents that no longer care about the state? As in the state is not even an issue. I guess the point I'm working around is when basic services like medical, water, food, and law enforcement have broken down what are insurgents fighting for? Is it freedom of religion or desire for lack of freedom of religion as an example? People kill people all the time "just because". We project power and legitimacy onto foreign governments with expectations of the populace realizing or legitimizing the projection.

If the power of a government is actually a shadow rather than an ability to act and the insurgency isn't interested in toppling the nascent government but in destabilizing the society what are we fighting? I'm trying to grapple with the ideas of insurgency and terrorism in a stateless society.

We talk about terrorists and insurgents as if they are different or motivated differently. The answer may be that insurgency and terrorism are tactics or strategies and the actors employ the destabilization method of choice at that time. The GWOT has been co-opted as a political euphemism and as such perhaps misdirected the discussion from the reality of the conflict.

I'll be honest I'm still moping and thinking on the topic. Since it isn't my area of expertise I figure I'll get whacked, but then again that's half the fun.

[Steve Blair]

I actually do think there is a difference between insurgents and terrorists in terms of motivations and goals, and went into some detail in another thread.

[Jedburgh]

I actually do think there is a difference between insurgents and terrorists in terms of motivations and goals, and went into some detail in another thread.

In my own scribblings, I don't even bother to categorize movements as "terrorists" or "insurgents." I view insurgency as a strategy and terrorism as a tactic or technique.

Here's the older thread that has been referred to a couple of times in this thread: Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

[selil]

Here's the older thread that has been referred to a couple of times in this thread: Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

So from that thread we agreed to disagree on the similarity and disparity between insurgents and terrorists? Other than "ThePartisan" (who i'd love to know if his IP address was at a US University) the discussion devolved to semantics.

[SteveMetz]

So from that thread we agreed to disagree on the similarity and disparity between insurgents and terrorists? Other than "ThePartisan" (who i'd love to know if his IP address was at a US University) the discussion devolved to semantics.

That's what I didn't participate: I'm anti-semantic

[SteveMetz]

What about insurgents that no longer care about the state? As in the state is not even an issue. I guess the point I'm working around is when basic services like medical, water, food, and law enforcement have broken down what are insurgents fighting for? Is it freedom of religion or desire for lack of freedom of religion as an example? People kill people all the time "just because". We project power and legitimacy onto foreign governments with expectations of the populace realizing or legitimizing the projection.

If the power of a government is actually a shadow rather than an ability to act and the insurgency isn't interested in toppling the nascent government but in destabilizing the society what are we fighting? I'm trying to grapple with the ideas of insurgency and terrorism in a stateless society.

We talk about terrorists and insurgents as if they are different or motivated differently. The answer may be that insurgency and terrorism are tactics or strategies and the actors employ the destabilization method of choice at that time. The GWOT has been co-opted as a political euphemism and as such perhaps misdirected the discussion from the reality of the conflict.

I'll be honest I'm still moping and thinking on the topic. Since it isn't my area of expertise I figure I'll get whacked, but then again that's half the fun.

In my own scribblings, I don't even bother to categorize movements as "terrorists" or "insurgents." I view insurgency as a strategy and terrorism as a tactic or technique.