Insurgency in the 21st Century

[Steve Blair]

One day I hope that people who support the 'global insurgency' theory can explain to me:

1. Which accepted school of International relations theory they subscribe to that accommodates this theory. Realism certainly does not, nor does any theory that acknowledges or accepts an essentially anarchic global system.

2. What is the "global" order that the "global insurgents" are trying to overthrow? (Does one assume that they are intuitively neo-rationalists? How does that accord with the fact that many of the commentators who support the theory actually decry the UN, International Law and the liberal interpretations of relations between sovereign states?)

3. How can we can have a 'global' insurgency of Islamists,that actually is not global?

As someone who spent awhile(ok, I am slow) in getting my masters in international relations, I have a bit of an issue when historians, anthropologists, sociologists and any other bloody 'ologists' (and the plain ignorant) all of a sudden start offering theories that impinge upon IR theory without clearly having the faintest clue about the subject.

end rant.

This is one of the reasons I get hung up on semantics. I'm one of those "quaint old folks" (well...not really old...not quaint...ok, stubborn bastards) who thinks there is a difference between insurgents and terrorists. To me, the core difference is that insurgents have viable goals and adversaries. Terrorists do not. Their entire construct is aimed at killing and general destabilization. Nothing more. However, the framework of insurgency (especially a "global insurgency") gives terrorists cover and a certain legitimacy they might not otherwise enjoy. I don't buy into the GWOT structure, but I do think there are distinct differences between insurgents and terrorists and that those differences are important.

end rant.

[Mark O'Neill]

This is one of the reasons I get hung up on semantics. I'm one of those "quaint old folks" (well...not really old...not quaint...ok, stubborn bastards) who thinks there is a difference between insurgents and terrorists. To me, the core difference is that insurgents have viable goals and adversaries. Terrorists do not. Their entire construct is aimed at killing and general destabilization. Nothing more. However, the framework of insurgency (especially a "global insurgency") gives terrorists cover and a certain legitimacy they might not otherwise enjoy. I don't buy into the GWOT structure, but I do think there are distinct differences between insurgents and terrorists and that those differences are important.

end rant.

Steve,

I am in violent agreement with you, as my old oppo in Mozambique would say 'you are deadly right'. The one qualification I would offer is that I think 'terror' is a common weapon that many insurgents choose to use if and when they think that the situation is appropriate.

Cheers

Mark

[SteveMetz]

Steve,

I am in violent agreement with you, as my old oppo in Mozambique would say 'you are deadly right'. The one qualification I would offer is that I think 'terror' is a common weapon that many insurgents choose to use if and when they think that the situation is appropriate.

Cheers

Mark

Ditto. As I've mentioned, I consider insurgency a strategy, terrorism a technique or operational method. Most insurgents use terrorism but not everyone who uses terrorism is an insurgent. Take my teenage daughters...

[Mark O'Neill]

Take my teenage daughters...

Now I suspect we are on very dangerous ground... can we avoid teenage females and stick to something simpler to solve.... like world peace...

[Steve Blair]

Steve,

I am in violent agreement with you, as my old oppo in Mozambique would say 'you are deadly right'. The one qualification I would offer is that I think 'terror' is a common weapon that many insurgents choose to use if and when they think that the situation is appropriate.

Cheers

Mark

I agree. Terrorism is certainly a tactic, but there are also groups and individuals that rely on it to the exclusion of all else. Lumping them all together misses the boat, IMO, and can lead to poor decision-making.

[SteveMetz]

I agree. Terrorism is certainly a tactic, but there are also groups and individuals that rely on it to the exclusion of all else. Lumping them all together misses the boat, IMO, and can lead to poor decision-making.

I can't think of a group that relies on terrorism to the exclusion of all else that is effective. What makes AQ dangerous, in my opinion, is its combination of terrorism and an effective psychological/ideological campaign. I guess I would refer to a group that relied on terrorism to the exclusion of all else "nihilists." Ultimately I think it helps our thinking to group opponents by their objectives or, perhaps, their worldview, rather than by their techniques. AQ didn't pick us as an adversary because we used combined arms operations but because of what they perceive as our political objectives and worldview.