Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

[Tom Odom]

Steve

This is exactly why it keep it as simple as possible when using the T-word.

Criminal enterprises...now there's an interesting one. Terrorist groups use these sorts of activities to finance their operations, so the two clearly mix.

Insurgent groups rob banks. So do extremists (AKA Terrorists). Insurgent groups use drug production to finance activities. Extremists do so as well.

As for the Global War on Terrorism, I (and I guess Marc as well) see it as a global COIN regardless of what you call the opposition. If we try and put it as a Global War on Terrorists (versus Terrorism) we end up fighting the insurgent and not the insurgency. To wit in a strategic COIN, we concentrate on lethal strike operations --which may play well inside the US--against high value targets and we neglect the global COIN objective of that neutral or passive Muslim majority centered in the even greater neutral or passive global majority.

Best

Tom

[Steve Blair]

Tom,

One of the reasons I don't like the use of terrorism with GWOT is the fact that terrorism was around before the rise of Muslim extremists, and they will be there after they're gone. Linking the two has the danger of stripping attention away from groups and individuals who are immune to COIN and only susceptible to direct action of some sort or another. COIN can work very well with Muslims, but it will have no impact on RAF/IRA-type groups.

What I think Marc and I are grappling with is a more suitable (to our minds, at least) way of categorizing things.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

What I think Marc and I are grappling with is a more suitable (to our minds, at least) way of categorizing things.

Certainly, although I am a touch more ambitious - I want to go beyond a taxonomy and into a descriptive and, hopefully, predictive model.


Marc

[slapout9]

You could try an LE model the group is usually identified by a leader or group title (Gotti,Crips,MS13,etc.) from there it is categorized by Motive(cause,ideology) Method(Terrorist,Insurgent,Robbers,Drug dealers, etc.) Opportunity(Time and Location) ??What say ye??

[Steve Blair]

You could try an LE model the group is usually identified by a leader or group title (Gotti,Crips,MS13,etc.) from there it is categorized by Motive(cause,ideology) Method(Terrorist,Insurgent,Robbers,Drug dealers, etc.) Opportunity(Time and Location) ??What say ye??

This is actually close to the premise I was working from, but centered more on ideals and goals than actual leader. Terrorist groups can have very elastic leadership chains, where a classic insurgency will often have a charismatic leader(s). The group framework (MS13 and so on) is most likely a better LE approach to take.

LE ideas and techniques are critical to COIN, so keep those ideas comin'!

[Steve Blair]

I like descriptive models as well, although my historical background makes me somewhat wary of predictive models.

I've always considered criminal activity of the sort we were discussing as a tactic. Organized crime refers more to the group that is using the tactic, and the fact that it has become their preferred tactic (indeed, possibly their main method of operations). What got me interested in this was the blanket use of the word "terrorist," often with a total ignorance of anything that came before Sept. 11. Trans-national insurgent groups are certainly vulnerable to COIN, and can be defeated by ideas. In my view, the hardline terrorist group is pretty immune to this approach, especially once they've entered their third generation of recruits. You may be able to isolate them from their recruiting sources, but the violence they cloak with ideological labels will normally attract more from other places.

When you face a mix of TNI and TGs (terrorist groups), targeting the TNI for COIN is certainly the way to go. TGs can use the goals of TNIs as a cloak for their activities, but if the TNI is defeated or changes its basic goals the TG is exposed.

Like I said, my framework is historical and not based in anthropology. The techniques are somewhat different. Not to say either is better, mind...just different.

[marct]

Hi Steve,

I like descriptive models as well, although my historical background makes me somewhat wary of predictive models.
....
Like I said, my framework is historical and not based in anthropology. The techniques are somewhat different. Not to say either is better, mind...just different.

I've got nothing against descriptive models per se either - I just get a touch worried when they are taken as if they were predictive models, which the press has a tendency to do <wry grin>.

When you face a mix of TNI and TGs (terrorist groups), targeting the TNI for COIN is certainly the way to go. TGs can use the goals of TNIs as a cloak for their activities, but if the TNI is defeated or changes its basic goals the TG is exposed.

I agree. Your point about multiple generations is also taken as well which, by the way, also gives us the timeline to shift perceptions - 3 generations <sigh>.

Marc

[Steve Blair]

I agree. Your point about multiple generations is also taken as well which, by the way, also gives us the timeline to shift perceptions - 3 generations <sigh>.

Marc

It's an even shorter timeline than you might think, Marc. Terrorist generations are defined by the members. Any time the majority of a group's founders are killed/captured/drop out, the next wave is referred to as the next generation. The German RAF went through 2-3 generations in about 4 years.

[Tom Odom]

COIN can work very well with Muslims, but it will have no impact on RAF/IRA-type groups.

I agree, Steve. In that realm I look at them as extremists and you cannot alter their mindsets. Certainly terror and terrorism, and terrorists are terms that predate what is called GWOT now. I also agree that GWOT is not the proper term; as you probably recall, there was a brief period where the White House actually started to use extremist. That soon stopped.

But we deal with those same terms as they applied in current context, as the terms terrorist and insurgent were juxtaposed to begin this thread.

My point is simply that the terms terrorists, terrorism, and terror have been used on so many contexts that their meanings muddle rather than clarify. And that confusion seeps into our strategy.

Best
Tom

[Stan]

Criminal enterprises...now there's an interesting one. Terrorist groups use these sorts of activities to finance their operations, so the two clearly mix. I do feel that there is a difference between an organized criminal activity (such as the Mafia or larger cartels) and smaller ones that crop up in unstable locations. Perhaps "organized crime" might be a better term for the "criminal enterprises" in disorganized territories, with the enterprise term limited to the criminal tactics and not the organization.

Steve,
The Estonian Central Criminal Police use that term even to this day to describe not only organized elements in disorganized territories (Russia) but concluded after an FBI course in NOV 05, that the locations no longer need to be unstable (although easier to maneuver and recruit), the tactics simply change to mesh with the operational area.

Why then would it be any different for a somewhat organized terrorist cell working abroad ?

I would think it would be much the same, a little homework (afterall, time is on your hands) and objective.

Yes, I have a rather modest view, less complicated and what I think is logical (I function, not operate the very same way).

Regards, Stan

[marct]

Hi Tom,

Insurgent groups rob banks. So do extremists (AKA Terrorists). Insurgent groups use drug production to finance activities. Extremists do so as well.

That's why I'm trying to categorize these as tactics, or preffered tactics.

As for the Global War on Terrorism, I (and I guess Marc as well) see it as a global COIN regardless of what you call the opposition. If we try and put it as a Global War on Terrorists (versus Terrorism) we end up fighting the insurgent and not the insurgency. To wit in a strategic COIN, we concentrate on lethal strike operations --which may play well inside the US--against high value targets and we neglect the global COIN objective of that neutral or passive Muslim majority centered in the even greater neutral or passive global majority.

Exactly! Part of the reason I get so picky on wording is that certain words gain semantic accretions (emotional and referential stuff that's associated with them) in the popular press. This, in turn, influences our ability to conduct global COIN. I've said it before i a number of threads, but I think it's worth repeating: this war is an ideological fight first and foremost.

Marc