Insurgency in the 21st Century

[Mark O'Neill]

I've never thought of "global insurgency" as a theory of international relations, but as a strategy adopted by a non-state organization. I guess the "global order" that they are trying to "overthrow" is the political/economic hieararchy in which advanced, non-Islamic states dominate the world. And I don't think the word "global" means that they are in every nook and cranny of the world. We spoke of "global communism" even though they didn't literally operate everywhere. (We didn't allow any in South Carolina, for instance).

Steve,

we have to make sure that our words mean precisely what we want them to mean, or we will confuse simple folk. (or find ourselves replicating a scene from 'Alice in Wonderland').

Social Science 101 tells us that a theory must hold true to a set of understood or declared rules, and be replicable and consistent in order to qualify as a theory.

If we start to swap the terms 'theory' , 'strategy' and 'description' we are in world of hurt. I think we have a bit of mission creep if folks are now proposing that the alleged phenomena of 'global insurgency' is not a theory ('cause that is certainly the way it appeared in David's piece) but now a 'strategy'.

Daily changing callsigns are a good opsec measure on tactical radio nets, but a poor substitute for replicable theory.

As for South Carolina... I guess that even communists recognised the limits of futility

[SteveMetz]

Steve,

we have to make sure that our words mean precisely what we want them to mean, or we will confuse simple folk. (or find ourselves replicating a scene from 'Alice in Wonderland').

Social Science 101 tells us that a theory must hold true to a set of understood or declared rules, and be replicable and consistent in order to qualify as a theory.

If we start to swap the terms 'theory' , 'strategy' and 'description' we are in world of hurt. I think we have a bit of mission creep if folks are now proposing that the alleged phenomena of 'global insurgency' is not a theory ('cause that is certainly the way it appeared in David's piece) but now a 'strategy'.

Daily changing callsigns are a good opsec measure on tactical radio nets, but a poor substitute for replicable theory.

As for South Carolina... I guess that even communists recognised the limits of futility

I'll need to go re-look Dave's essay. I never thought of it as an attempt at theory creation.

[Mark O'Neill]

I'll need to go re-look Dave's essay. I never thought of it as an attempt at theory creation.

Funny, maybe I read it wrong, but that is how it always struck me. How else can you propose counters such a disaggregation (or any other approaches) as a strategy if you have not established a theoretical understanding of the phenomenon you are trying to defeat?


It seems to me that if you have not made a theoretical construct to quantify and understand the problem you are trying to counter then you are essentially plucking ideas out of your backside in the hope that one might work. I know that David does not work like that, I believe that his 'countering global insurgency' essay was based on a developed theoretical construct that he believed / possibly still believes, accounted for the phenomena he was proposing a counter for.

of course.. I could be mistaken - it is after midnight on Friday night here.... I need to get a life....

[marct]

Hi Mark and Steve,

Maybe it is because Dave is an Anthropologist, but I always assumed that he had a theoretical model based on emergence; certainly his use of complexity theory seemed to fit, and there is a long history inside Antrho of that type of model.

Marc

[selil]

I’ve been thinking about the concepts of terrorist, terrorism, insurgent, and what these terms mean to our resulting interest in international relations. The discussion keeps popping up to delineate the terms and codify the meanings. Coming to a common consensus on such an overloaded set of terms is fairly difficult. There are dictionary definitions, encyclopedias, and entire thesis on the origination of the terms, but for sake of discussion lets try to think of them this way.

Terrorism is a strategy utilizing unexpected violence and associated fear. What differentiates terrorism from criminal enterprise is the political motivation behind the acts of terrorism. Simple wanton violence for the sake of violence would not be terrorism it would be anarchy. Of course it would follow that a person engaged in the act of terrorism is a terrorist. Terrorism is a strategy that can be state sponsored, other than state sponsored, and individual in its execution. The motivation to create violence and fear in a population can be ideological (religion, sectarian, revenge), or it can be compensatory (cash, trade, barter). In general though there is some defining quality of attempting to create change in the larger political structure.

When I think of the insurgent I’m thinking about a politically motivated individual. Politics is not just the realm of the state though, and the religious convictions or hubris of the individual does play a part in the political power equation. The insurgent is working towards imposing violence on the nation-state through the use of tactics and strategies that may include terrorism. So an insurgent can employ a strategy that is in the role of terrorist and still maintain their political affiliation of insurgent. This is no different than an insurgent who uses guerilla warfare, aerial bombardment, swarm, or some other strategy.

As to motivation and the differences between insurgent and terrorist it might be that there is no difference. Terrorist or trigger puller the motivation of who “get’s” what when and how (politics) might not be tied to the sectarian or world of here and now. Violence can be it’s own reward, and the willful destruction of happiness and freedom their own ends. The destruction of the nation state or the governmental authority may be simple side affects of the insurgent/terrorist/guerilla warrior’s actions. Applying motivations or dogma to a group that may not have either and be dispersed over a global environment is nearing on the ludicrous.

Each cell or group may have differing perceived reasons for their apparent decision to perpetrate violence against the state. The violence itself may be it’s own reward. The dispersion of ideas and techniques are a side effect of their common bond in waging conflict but not necessarily in political fellowship. With technology the ability to coordinate over vast distances instantaneously and distribute and refine techniques quickly gives the appearance of mindful coordination. The reality is likely not a shared political will but a shared choice of perpetrating violence.


Insurgent or terrorist? Likely neither and both. We don’t call a soldier a “trigger puller” or identify them as such beyond a simple role. Similarly the term terrorist is much over used to describe the implementer of a tactic that might have broader implications. We’ve codified in law the term terrorism and the associated term terrorist without taking into account that it in reality limits the scope of the discussion inappropriately.