Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 186

Thread: Insurgency vs. Civil War

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Yes, I mean to say civil war is a subset of insurgency. Insurgency is simply violence against established authority. Civil wars are always large insurgencies (hence the "war").
    Not sure I agree with that. How do you define "established authority?" Who, for example, was the established authority in the Russian civil war? What about cases where the insurgency gains the upper hand and becomes "established" but elements of the old regime remain and continue to fight? At what point to they change from being the "established authority" to the insurgent?
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  2. #22
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Sounds like a good AWC answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    This seems to have been pretty well covered, but insurgency is a strategy that is sometimes used in civil wars. A civil war is simply an armed conflict where the antagonists are exclusively or primarily citizens of the same state.
    But if this is the official answer, I think it is worthy of a deeper look.

    If insurgency is merely a strategy employed by a civil war opponent to the state it really doesn't offer much to the counterinsurgent in terms of helping him understand and resolve the threat. Simply defeat the civil war opponent and the insurgency will go away.

    But that's not how it works. Every time that tact is taken (and that is often), the insurgency simply flares back up. Perhaps with a new name, new leadership, new ideology, often even a different segment of the society; but always to counter the same failed system of governance that gave rise to the last flare up.

    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.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 06-24-2010 at 07:09 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  3. #23
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveMetz View Post
    This seems to have been pretty well covered, but insurgency is a strategy that is sometimes used in civil wars. A civil war is simply an armed conflict where the antagonists are exclusively or primarily citizens of the same state.
    But if this is the official answer, I think it is worthy of a deeper look.

    If insurgency is merely a strategy employed by a civil war opponent to the state it really doesn't offer much to the counterinsurgent in terms of helping him understand and resolve the threat. Simply defeat the civil war opponent and the insurgency will go away.
    Hmmm, well "insurgency", at least in the sense of a popular uprising, might be a tactic employed in a civil war but, on the whole, I have to agree with Bob that it certainly can't be limited to that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    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.
    Agreed about manifesting in several forms, but I'm not sure I agree with you on the implied crisp distinction between insurgency and subversion. For example, I would argue that Ghandi was an insurgent rather than a "subversive".
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  4. #24
    Council Member ryanmleigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Based on a lot of the recent discussion is there a need to distinguish between the political and military aspects of conflict. Could it be as simple as saying that civil war is primarily a military conflict with political action secondary while an insurgency is primarily a political conflict with military action secondary?

    Probably far to simplistic, but still trying to wrap my head around the differences.

  5. #25
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Just applying Kitson's distinction. Same root cause, Subversion as it grows, Insurgency once the violence exceeeds a certain level (just to show I don't have to come up with my own approach for everything, and to throw Wilf a well-earned bone). But it is these causal conditions of insurgency at the roots of this whole mess that must be the main effort focus of good (effective) COIN. Too often we slave away at defeating the symptoms as they manifest and largely ignore the root causes.

    This gets to the crux of my work; and why I see Karzai's efforts with reconciliation as the key to success in Afghanistan, regardless of what General we put in charge of the military coalition efforts. The coalition's military efforts have to be a supporting effort to a supporting effort (Afghan military efforts) for there to be true success. But that is not how we're approaching this.

    By focusing on what Karzai is doing at the GIROA level we get at the actual heart of the insurgency. If he is unwilling to go all in on addressing the causal factors, then that is the metric we are looking for in terms of beginning our down-sizing of military effort. We can't just be the goon squad that keeps him in power.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  6. #26
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanmleigh View Post
    Based on a lot of the recent discussion is there a need to distinguish between the political and military aspects of conflict. Could it be as simple as saying that civil war is primarily a military conflict with political action secondary while an insurgency is primarily a political conflict with military action secondary?
    It might, possibly, be easier to concentrate on the concept of civil war as a conflict to determine who will rule, while and insurgency would be closer to how they will rule.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Just applying Kitson's distinction. Same root cause, Subversion as it grows, Insurgency once the violence exceeeds a certain level (just to show I don't have to come up with my own approach for everything, and to throw Wilf a well-earned bone). But it is these causal conditions of insurgency at the roots of this whole mess that must be the main effort focus of good (effective) COIN. Too often we slave away at defeating the symptoms as they manifest and largely ignore the root causes.
    Agreed (sort of ). As I said earlier, I can think of "insurgencies" that were basically non-violent. I came up with another one as I was dealing with my "microsoft moment" (you know "Install these updates now or we will destroy your computer...."): the Catholic Church.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    This gets to the crux of my work; and why I see Karzai's efforts with reconciliation as the key to success in Afghanistan, regardless of what General we put in charge of the military coalition efforts. The coalition's military efforts have to be a supporting effort to a supporting effort (Afghan military efforts) for there to be true success. But that is not how we're approaching this.

    By focusing on what Karzai is doing at the GIROA level we get at the actual heart of the insurgency. If he is unwilling to go all in on addressing the causal factors, then that is the metric we are looking for in terms of beginning our down-sizing of military effort. We can't just be the goon squad that keeps him in power.
    Totally agree in the specifics of Afghanistan, Bob. I would argue, in fact, that a number of ISAF efforts have been counter-productive to resolving that conflict.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  7. #27
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default All sorts of different (valid) ways to look at this

    Let me take just one very narrow topic - how have insurgencies and civil wars been treated under domestic law and international law over the last 200 years ?

    To answer that, I'd have to put together a list of armed conflicts (which is the key I Law term) that may be called a lot of different names - insurgencies, civil wars, insurrections, rebellions, resistence to occupiers, national liberation wars, etc.

    In short, I look at a bunch of "Small Wars" in Callwell's jargon (or "Shadow Wars" in Asprey's jargon) and end up with some "operational definitions" as brother Fishel terms them - definitions not carved in stone but set up for working purposes.

    Then I'd look at how each of those armed conflicts was treated legally, domestically (at least two views there - e.g., the War of Southern Rebellion vs the War of Northern Aggression) and internationally (many possible views).

    That would be quite a study - one I don't plan on starting and finishing this month.

    And - it would be largely immaterial to all except a small group of Laws of War folks.

    Regards

    Mike

  8. #28
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default Another view

    Here's what I was taught- the independent variable is the guerrila's capacity to conduct violence.

    So,

    An insurgency can be labeled a civil war once the guerrila builds the same capacity to conduct violence (military mass) that the host nation possesses.

    Applied loosely, this does not have to mean the the guerrila possesses the same amount of tanks as the host nation. That's why one could justify Iraq moved into a civil war between late 2005 and early 2006.

  9. #29
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Mike, you've probably nailed the majority position

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeF View Post
    Here's what I was taught- the independent variable is the guerrila's capacity to conduct violence.

    So,

    An insurgency can be labeled a civil war once the guerrila builds the same capacity to conduct violence (military mass) that the host nation possesses.

    Applied loosely, this does not have to mean the the guerrila possesses the same amount of tanks as the host nation. That's why one could justify Iraq moved into a civil war between late 2005 and early 2006.
    I don't like it though, don't see the difference as being one of scale or capacity, but rather one of nature. How is the nature of insurgency unique from that of civil war?

    I see civil war as being much more like any other state on state war, except that in this case one state decided to form into two states and then wage state on state war. So for me civil war is war. It only denotes that both sides were a single state before it started and are fighting over the split.

    Insurgency need never split the state. As I (frequently, Ken reminds me ) state, I see insurgency as a unique set of causal conditions rooted in certain fundamental failures on the part of the government as perceived by their populace. As Marc indicates, this can then manifest itself in several forms, some non-violent, some violent, some legal, some illegal. The causal roots are the same for this family of insurgency-based conflict. Regardless of how it manifests, addressing the causal roots must be the focus/main effort of the COIN effort. If it goes violent you have "classic insurgency"; if it goes illegal, but non-violent, you have "classic subversion; if it stays legal but stays non-violent you have politics. You may get each sequentially, or at the same time, or in a crazy mix over years and years. So long as the causal roots remain unaddressed it is the gift that keeps giving.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  10. #30
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    I see civil war as being much more like any other state on state war, except that in this case one state decided to form into two states and then wage state on state war. So for me civil war is war. It only denotes that both sides were a single state before it started and are fighting over the split.
    Perhaps you're projecting too much from the US case? Most civil wars (English, Russian, Lebanese, Liberian, etc) aren't primarily about political separation, they're about control.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  11. #31
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    I would tend to agree with Rex. U.S. historical examples are often rather singular and can be difficult to use on a wider scale or stage.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  12. #32
    Council Member ryanmleigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Perhaps you're projecting too much from the US case? Most civil wars (English, Russian, Lebanese, Liberian, etc) aren't primarily about political separation, they're about control.
    Rex, very interesting thread. Do you think you could possibly expand on the idea of control some? In the context you are using the word control, control of or over what? Not trying to nail you down or anything I am just curious what you meant by control.
    Ryan Leigh
    US Army

  13. #33
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ryanmleigh View Post
    Rex, very interesting thread. Do you think you could possibly expand on the idea of control some? In the context you are using the word control, control of or over what? Not trying to nail you down or anything I am just curious what you meant by control.
    Political control--over regime, territory, and the allocation of resources.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  14. #34
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Rex, not projecting, just searching for a usable distinction

    Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
    Perhaps you're projecting too much from the US case? Most civil wars (English, Russian, Lebanese, Liberian, etc) aren't primarily about political separation, they're about control.
    I Recognize that "civil war" is a term used to describe all kinds of conflicts; most of which I would argue really weren't civil wars at all but rather were more insurgencies. But with no firm definitions to work with, why argue? So not projecting the US verson, but merely seeing it as distinct from insurgency, so perhaps a workable model for a definition of Civil War that is also distinct from insurgency.

    Size is not a good distinction, and as the Maoist model suggests an insurgency can grow until it becomes very conventional in nature, so type of warfare being waged is not a good distinction either. I think you have to look at the causal roots to find viable distinctions; and this is also where you shape viable COAs for dealing with a conflict as well.

    The historically sloppy use of the term "civil war" by historians really clouds development of a workable definition that makes it distinct from insurgency in a meaningful, helpful way.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  15. #35
    Council Member William F. Owen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
    Posts
    3,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    The historically sloppy use of the term "civil war" by historians really clouds development of a workable definition that makes it distinct from insurgency in a meaningful, helpful way.
    Again, why do we wish to differentiate? Basically the problem here is the silly word "insurgency" which has become so loaded, it has now ceased to be useful, thanks to the US COIN-club malarky.
    IMO, it matters not if it's an Rebellion or a Civil War. You are still backing one side against the other, in line with US policy.
    The mission is to make sure that the side you like wins. That's it!! Pick a side, and resource it, until it has defeated the armed opposition. Why make it more complex?
    Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

    - The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
    - If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
    Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition

  16. #36
    Council Member MikeF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Chapel Hill, NC
    Posts
    1,177

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    I don't like it though, don't see the difference as being one of scale or capacity, but rather one of nature. How is the nature of insurgency unique from that of civil war?
    Sir, it's just a matter of what lens that you are using. I don't think that has to be mutually exclusive. Rather, I can blend scale/capacity and what you'd describe as the soul. I'd suggest we put them together in order to have a better understanding of the conflict. For example, two dudes who act violently over justified grievances over bad governance are less of a concern to me than a million man army gathering in DC.

    Insurgency need never split the state. As I (frequently, Ken reminds me ) state, I see insurgency as a unique set of causal conditions rooted in certain fundamental failures on the part of the government as perceived by their populace. As Marc indicates, this can then manifest itself in several forms, some non-violent, some violent, some legal, some illegal. The causal roots are the same for this family of insurgency-based conflict. Regardless of how it manifests, addressing the causal roots must be the focus/main effort of the COIN effort. If it goes violent you have "classic insurgency"; if it goes illegal, but non-violent, you have "classic subversion; if it stays legal but stays non-violent you have politics. You may get each sequentially, or at the same time, or in a crazy mix over years and years. So long as the causal roots remain unaddressed it is the gift that keeps giving.
    That makes sense. And you still need to address the issue of control.

    From Rex
    Political control--over regime, territory, and the allocation of resources.
    Excellent points Rex, but we must also remember that it's an illusion of control. That's actually one reason why I think that Glenn Beck is so paranoid these days. He finally realized most of the things he took for granted were illusions- security, economics, etc...They are based on the belief that something is true.

    Economic example- My bank says that my savings account has $10000. Does the bank physically have my money on hand? No. They've reinvested it into loans, bonds, stocks, etc...If I go and ask for my money, then no problem. If everyone makes a run on the bank, then big problem.

    Mike

  17. #37
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    But if this is the official answer, I think it is worthy of a deeper look.

    If insurgency is merely a strategy employed by a civil war opponent to the state it really doesn't offer much to the counterinsurgent in terms of helping him understand and resolve the threat. Simply defeat the civil war opponent and the insurgency will go away.

    But that's not how it works. Every time that tact is taken (and that is often), the insurgency simply flares back up. Perhaps with a new name, new leadership, new ideology, often even a different segment of the society; but always to counter the same failed system of governance that gave rise to the last flare up.

    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.

    I would never purport to give an official answer. But the key distinction is between defeating an opponent and altering whatever conditions are that gave rise to the conflict in the first place. It doesn't matter whether a war is civil or international, or whether one of the antagonists uses a strategy of insurgency or not, simply defeating the enemy does not assure that the conflict will later re-emerge, but at least opens that possibility. E.g. World War I which did not alter the conditions that gave rise to it, while World War II did.

    When a conflict does re-emerge, even if one of the antagonists used insurgency earlier they may not later. South Vietnam did not fall to an insurgency. In other words, a given conflict can have insurgency phases and non-insurgency phases.

    Simply because something is a "civil war" does not, in itself, imply whether the goal should be the limited one of defeating existing enemies or altering the conditions which gave rise to the conflict. A civil war simply involves antagonists from the same nation.

  18. #38
    Council Member M-A Lagrange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    In Barsoom, as a fact!
    Posts
    976

    Default let's look at the definitions

    ryanmleigh
    Based on a lot of the recent discussion is there a need to distinguish between the political and military aspects of conflict. Could it be as simple as saying that civil war is primarily a military conflict with political action secondary while an insurgency is primarily a political conflict with military action secondary?

    Probably far to simplistic, but still trying to wrap my head around the differences.
    Some definitions from Wikipedia that have the advantage to be the ones from ICRC and great scholar:
    Civil war:
    James Fearon, a scholar of civil wars at Stanford University, defines a civil war as "a violent conflict within a country fought by organized groups that aim to take power at the center or in a region, or to change government policies".Ann Hironaka further specifies that one side of a civil war is the state. The intensity at which a civil disturbance becomes a civil war is contested by academics. Some political scientists define a civil war as having more than 1000 casualties, while others further specify that at least 100 must come from each side. The Correlates of War, a dataset widely used by scholars of conflict, classifies civil wars as having over 1000 war-related casualties per year of conflict. This rate is a small fraction of the millions killed in the Second Sudanese Civil War and Cambodian Civil War, for example, but excludes several highly publicized conflicts, such as The Troubles of Northern Ireland and the struggle of the African National Congress in Apartheid-era South Africa.
    Based on the 1000 casualties per year criterion, there were 213 civil wars from 1816 to 1997, 104 of which occurred from 1944 to 1997. If one uses the less-stringent 1000 casualties total criterion, there were over 90 civil wars between 1945 and 2007, with 20 ongoing civil wars as of 2007.
    Further definitions
    The Geneva Conventions do not specifically define the term "civil war". They do, however, describe the criteria for acts qualifying as "armed conflict not of an international character", which includes civil wars. Among the conditions listed are four requirements:
    • The party in revolt must be in possession of a part of the national territory.
    • The insurgent civil authority must exercise de facto authority over the population within the determinate portion of the national territory.
    • The insurgents must have some amount of recognition as a belligerent.
    • The legal Government is "obliged to have recourse to the regular military forces against insurgents organized as military."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_war

    Insurgency:
    The United States Department of Defense (DOD) defines it as "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict." The new United States counterinsurgency Field Manual, proposes a structure that includes both insurgency and counterinsurgency [COIN]. (italics in original)
    Insurgency and its tactics are as old as warfare itself. Joint doctrine defines an insurgency as an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict. These definitions are a good starting point, but they do not properly highlight a key paradox: though insurgency and COIN are two sides of a phenomenon that has been called revolutionary war or internal war, they are distinctly different types of operations. In addition, insurgency and COIN are included within a broad category of conflict known as irregular warfare.
    The French expert on Indochina and Vietnam, Bernard Fall, entitled one of his major books Street without joy: insurgency in Indochina, 1946-63. Fall himself, however, wrote later on that "revolutionary warfare" might be a more accurate term. Insurgency has been used for years in professional military literature. Under the British, the situation in Malaya (now Malaysia) was often called the "Malayan insurgency"., or "the Troubles" in Northern Ireland. Insurgencies have existed in many countries and regions, including the Philippines, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Kashmir, Yemen, Djibouti, Colombia, Sri Lanka, and Democratic Republic of the Congo, the American colonies of Great Britain, and the Confederate States of America.[16] Each had different specifics but share the property of an attempt to disrupt the central government by means considered illegal by that government. North points out, however, that insurgents today need not be part of a highly organized movement:
    "Some are networked with only loose objectives and mission-type orders to enhance their survival. Most are divided and factionalized by area, composition, or goals. Strike one against the current definition of insurgency. It is not relevant to the enemies we face today. Many of these enemies do not currently seek the overthrow of a constituted government...weak government control is useful and perhaps essential for many of these “enemies of the state” to survive and operate."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurgency

    I would more or less in accordance with Wilf. Insurgency is qualifying a way to conduct war not a good term to describe a “war”.

    International and non international wars can be done through irregular warfare or regular warfare.
    The use of irregular warfare tactics is not sufficient to describe a movement as acivil war or an insurgency.

    Insurgency as others did point it can be against a national government from nationals. Or against a foreign government by nationals. While a civilwar is only 2 or more nationals parties against each others.

  19. #39
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Steve;

    Actually S. Vietnam DID fall to insurgency. We tend to put way too much emphasis on the fact that a bunch of Westerners broke off a chunk of Vietnam in the middle of the insurgency and created this tremendous sanctuary for the insurgency called "North Vietnam." The creation of that state in mid-stream in no way changed the overall nature and goal of the larger insurgency. Ho followed the Maoist model with which prescribes advancing to decisive conventional operations as the final stage of the insurgency, which they surged up to several times, ultimately prevailing. We confused ourselves into thinking we had a state on state war with a supporting local insurgency and thereby got off track on our approach to the problem. We confuse ourselves often in these things by taking too seriously what governments think and perceive. Insurgency is all about what the populace thinks and perceives.

    In other places we have confused ourselves by declaring "victory" because one insurgent group has been militarily defeated, while the underlying perceptions of poor governance with the populace have been largely untreated and continue to fester along re-emerging in violence a few years down the road (often with new groups, new ideologies and new leaders). Algeria and the Philippines spring to mind as a couple of recent classic examples of this. The insurgency is the perception among the populace, and is rooted in the government itself, not any one particular group that rises up to challenge that government.

    Bob
    Last edited by Bob's World; 06-25-2010 at 01:39 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  20. #40
    Council Member SteveMetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Carlisle, PA
    Posts
    1,488

    Default

    I have a bit of trouble defining a combined arms force of over 200K as an insurgent one. I think you fall into the trap of defining insurgency as anything Mao described. The Maoist approach was to use insurgency to prepare for conventional war.

    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.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •