Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Insurgency Defined and COIN Principles

  1. #21
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Thanks Tom

    MAJ Strickland I share your sense of anger and frustration, and like most of us, I will do everything possible in my limited power as a citizen and soldier to prevent decisions like the ones that led us into this convoluted mess from being made in the future.

    However, how can we really influence policy when you have a voting public that is glued to FOX or some other some other bias news program for their information on policy making? Six pack Joe thinks it is a cool idea to go kick someone's butt, especially when he doesn't have to do it. Let's face it, a number of educated and experienced people without political agendas spoke out and gave the decision makers an accurate prediction of the consequences of going into Iraq. They were ignored, thus there were no realistic plans implemented to mitigate what should have been the anticipated problems. You're right that was and remains unacceptable.

    My point about water under the bridge is not meant to dismiss the mistakes made my folks that should have known better, but simply to point out that we can't go back in a time machine and change history.

    I'm not arguing whether we should have going into Iraq or not, since that is a political argument and not the purpose of this site. My argument is that our efforts were very poorly planned, and this may have resulted in us missing our window of opportunity to achieve the victory we desired, and now may have to settle for something much less. We'll see where we're at in a couple a few months, there remains the possibility that Iraq will embrace democracy and develop a functional economy against tremendous odds.

  2. #22
    Council Member Stratiotes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Missouri
    Posts
    94

    Default Legitmacy

    I think it ultimately comes to the legitimacy question that someone mentioned already.

    Insrugency is hard to define because it implies a legitimate authority is being challenged by another group. But that is where the problem is - the authority in question is only "legitimate" from the authority's point of view. The ones that the authority refers to as "insurgents" would question their legitimacy as an authority. The US recognizes one authority, the guerrillas do not recognize that same authority. So, we define insurgents as those who do not recognize the authority that we do - which is begging the question and creating a circular definition. In that sense, defining it is impossible. We say, "you are an insurgent because you challenge the accepted authority." And the "insurgent" replies, "There is no accepted authority...or if there is, it certainly is not you."

    I think this is a secret to understanding how to deal with them. Accepting our definition from our point of view that we represent the authority and they are the insurgents for challenging that authority....
    Insurgents do not have to defeat the authority, they only have to challenge it's legitimacy in the eyes of the people involved. They do not have to win any battles, they only have to convince the people that the "authority" being challenged is really no authority at all and that it cannot win any battles either.

    Ultimately, the question is one of legitimacy - is the authority we recognize the legitimate (deemed capable of ruling by the people) or is some other authority we do not recognize the real authority?

    Sorry for the rant. I'm new here and not an expert by any means and I hope it makes sense. Its just a thought I have been pondering on this subject for a while now.
    Mark
    Discuss at: The Irregulars Visit at: UW Review
    "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G. K. Chesterton

  3. #23
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Stafford, VA
    Posts
    262

    Default

    You raise an interesting point. Most agree that in an insurgency, legitimacy is the strategic center of gravity; however, as you point out, reaching a common perspective on what is legitimate or illegitimate is difficult. I have argued previously, and will contine to assert that reaching a common understanding of justice would be less difficult. Whether applying the Koran, Torah, Western Enlightenment theory, etc., most can agree on what is legally acceptable and what is not. We should continue to seek a common understanding of international law in order to enable our search for legitimacy.

  4. #24
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    129

    Default Binary, zero sum legitimacy

    It seems like we've been viewing legitimacy in a moderately simplistic fashion - "only one side can have it" and "you either have it or you don't" - is that a correct statement? Or perhaps, should it be?

    In fact, legitimacy is neither zero sum, nor binary in at least one important respect - different people may view either the insurgents or the government as legitimate.

    So which is more important in your views- that people view the government as legitimate, or that they fail to view insurgents as legitimate?

    (Tangent: as for what to call various groups in Iraq, I nominate the term "guerrilla" which I think is less inflamatory while remaining accurate)

  5. #25
    Council Member Stratiotes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Richmond, Missouri
    Posts
    94

    Default Where is legitimacy?

    I think you may be hitting on one part of the problem too - legitimacy itself is difficult to define. Major S. mentioned international law as a possible definer but guerrillas (and I like that term too) will never likely agree to the same law we do. We are appealing for a common ground where there may be no real common ground. And, when it comes right down to it, I don't think legitimacy can be defined in legal terms - it can only be defined in practical terms...legitimacy is in the eye of the beholder as it were. Legitimacy rests with whoever the people see as the authority worthy or capable of ruling.

    I think Bill Lind (actually John Boyd) touches on this too when he talks about isolating the guerrilla so that he is the one who appears to have no legitimacy. The guerrilla attempts to isolate the current authority by raising questions about its legitimacy and using public opinion to make the authority look harsh or incapable of ruling. They have an easier job to do in a sense. Perhaps we need to figure out how to play that game in reverse - find ways to make their claim on legitimacy suspect.
    Mark
    Discuss at: The Irregulars Visit at: UW Review
    "The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him." - G. K. Chesterton

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
  •