Defining an insurgency

[Farnan]

For my paper on counterinsurgency, an important issue will be defining what is an insurgency. I don't want to include international terrorist acts in the definition, but at the same time don't want to exclude the part international movements play in insurgencies.

Here is my current definition:

An insurgency is a sustained, irregular military movement conducted by a non-state actor within a state to achieve political goals within that state.

What is your opinion?

(Note I use Guerrilla and Insurgent interchangeably)

[Shadowcry]

Guerrillas are almost always freedom fighters!

[Farnan]

Guerrillas are almost always freedom fighters!

And this has a point how?

And I'm sure the Taliban, Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Contras, FARC, ETA, and the Lord's Resistance Army are freedom fighters.

I'm not arguing who is right or wrong here.

[Shadowcry]

And this has a point how?

And I'm sure the Taliban, Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Contras, FARC, ETA, and the Lord's Resistance Army are freedom fighters.

I'm not arguing who is right or wrong here.

I'm just trying to make teh point that an insurgency or glorious revolution are really relative depending on either side fighting. And yeah according to the Taliban, Contras etc they consider themselves freedom fighters so yeah point still stands.

I would be interested in reading this paper when you manage to finish it, seeing how counterinsurgencies are one of the most hardest problems to tackle in warfare.

[Da Skinna]

Most rebellions are borne, I think, from a desire for adherence by the state and government towards basic tenets of human rights, in that way, rebellions are more noble than a war.

Insurgencies, that do not ask for equal rights, but for superior rights for a small population, for a political party to advance its own ends, that are not grounded in human rights, is an ignoble rebellion.

It really becomes an insurgency for what?

[Farnan]

Interesting discussion, and I'm sure to join you, I'm just asking your opinion of my definition (after I get that I'll continue this part of the discussion).

[Da Skinna]

Interesting discussion, and I'm sure to join you, I'm just asking your opinion of my definition (after I get that I'll continue this part of the discussion).

Hmm, did I just forgo your question and insert my own thoughts...? Yeah I do that.

No, it's a pretty good definition but take into account what .Czar is saying, the relative means and ends of going about an "insurgency."

[Panzerbear]

Here is my current definition:

An insurgency is a sustained, irregular military movement conducted by a non-state actor within a state to achieve political goals within that state.

What is your opinion?

I think it should be more "An insurgency is a sustained irregular military movement, which engages in combat against a dominant military force by use of asymmetric warfare".

it is not always non-state actor and the battle ground is not always one state. also, I don't think it makes too much sense to cramp together the definition itself and the typical goals of insurgency.

just my 2 cents . other than that, sounds like an interesting paper to write. what is it for?

[Farnan]

I think it should be more "An insurgency is a sustained irregular military movement, which engages in combat against a dominant military force by use of asymmetric warfare".

it is not always non-state actor and the battle ground is not always one state. also, I don't think it makes too much sense to cramp together the definition itself and the goals of insurgency.

just my 2 cents.

If you're going to remove non-state I wouldn't add dominant military. Because the US Special Forces engaged in irregular operations against the North Vietnamese, and OSS against the Japanese and Germans.

But I'm going to keep political goals in order to separate it from bandits and criminals (MS-13 is not an insurgency in the US).

.Czar - The paper is on the Theory and Practice of Counter-insurgency Warfare. It uses information and works both by famous Guerrilla leaders (Mao, Che, Lenin, Lawrence) and Counter-Guerrilla writings. Its for an independent studies class.

[Panzerbear]

If you're going to remove non-state I wouldn't add dominant military.

how come? insurgency is committed ALWAYS against a dominant military force that controls a region. there are absolutely no exceptions to this.

as far as non-state - it is simply not always the case. take Iraq war for example. as soon as Republican Guard was losing badly on the ground, they immediately dissolved into insurgent /guerilla tactics. thats technically a state actor fighting a dominant military force (US invader).

Because the US Special Forces engaged in irregular operations against the North Vietnamese, and OSS against the Japanese and Germans.

in this case, I am afraid it is US special forces that are using insurgency / guerilla tactics against the overwhelming presence of the enemy. it should be obvious.

But I'm going to keep political goals in order to separate it from bandits and criminals (MS-13 is not an insurgency in the US).

"bandits" and "criminals" are mostly propaganda terms really. they have nothing to do in your scientific definition of the term insurgency.

PS: oh it is only a college paper? screw it then. you can write anything the hell you want. the liberals wont be able to tell one thing from another anyway .

[Farnan]

how come? insurgency is committed ALWAYS against a dominant military force that controls a region. there are absolutely no exceptions to this.

True, in that region but not necessary over the country and I don't want to get that confused in a reader whose wondering who I'm talking about.

as far as non-state - it is simply not always the case. take Iraq war for example. as soon as Republican Guard was losing badly on the ground, they immediately dissolved into insurgent /guerilla tactics. thats technically a state actor fighting a dominant military force (US invader).

Thinking about it you're right.

"bandits" and "criminals" are mostly propaganda terms really. they have nothing to do in your scientific definition of the term insurgency.

I doubt drug runners can be called an insurgent movement, and the strategies that deal with them are completely different.

Bandits who rob UN Aid convoys aren't dealt with the same as a force with a political objective.

And gangs in LA aren't met by a US Military force...

.Czar - Normally I'd agree with you, but I looked around his office and he has books like: "The Face of Battle" by John Keegan, and Hitler's Lieutenants. Basically military history seems to be a major interest, and when I mentioned this paper he knew a good deal about the topic. Not one of the guys I can BS.

His bio:

Professor Lemke earned his PhD at Vanderbilt in 1993, and has taught at Penn State since 2004. His research interests range widely across the study of conflict, both between states and within them, and his latest research attempts to use arguments from IR to explain domestic conflicts, in hopes of learning something about state making. The best example of his published research is: Douglas Lemke. 2003. "African Lessons for IR Research." World Politics 56(1):114-138.

[Panzerbear]

True, in that region but not necessary over the country and I don't want to get that confused in a reader whose wondering who I'm talking about.

and that is why you will stay as vague as possible (hence the definition which can work in any particular case).

the point of insurgency is always being on uneven terms with the enemy in the particular area of combat. whether or not this dominant military controls only that region or the entire country is completely irrelevant for your purposes .

Thinking about it you're right.

and thats why I am persuading you to like my initial definition .

I doubt drug runners can be called an insurgent movement, and the strategies that deal with them are completely different.

but then the drug runners are not a sustained irregular military movement with engage in combat with dominant military force . they are running away from all sorts of combat in the first place. and they are usually not getting hunted down by a dominant military force, but by special police units.

Bandits who rob UN Aid convoys aren't dealt with the same as a force with a political objective.

again, doesnt match the precise definition, therefore, bandits who rob UN aid convoys are not insurgents.

Basically military history seems to be a major interest, and when I mentioned this paper he knew a good deal about the topic. Not one of the guys I can BS.

His bio:

sounds good!

[hellheaven1987]

how come? insurgency is committed ALWAYS against a dominant military force that controls a region. there are absolutely no exceptions to this.

Actually, there were/are several exceptions happened/happens in Africa...

One of best example currently is the conflict in east Congo, which the government troops rarely enjoyed any advantage even in number (shame on the government troops).

[Panzerbear]

Actually, there were/are several exceptions happened/happens in Africa...

One of best example currently is the conflict in east Congo, which the government troops rarely enjoyed any advantage even in number (shame on the government troops).

if there is no disadvantage in numbers, then there is no dominant military force, thus, no insurgency.

if both rebels and govt forces have roughly equal forces, then they fight on equal terms and clash head to head, not in insurgency style of warfare. there is simply no need for it.

[Farnan]

Also, if its real good I would enjoy to get it published...

But sadly I'm an undergrad so I don't think that's possible.

[Panzerbear]

Also, if its real good I would enjoy to get it published...

But sadly I'm an undergrad so I don't think that's possible.

just enjoy why it lasts. I wish I could write papers on counter-insurgency. that would be a breeze...

in my case (for grad school), I write papers on equity derivatives trading and strategic management .

[eisenkopf]

Also, if its real good I would enjoy to get it published...

But sadly I'm an undergrad so I don't think that's possible.

There is no rule barring anyone from publishing in scientific journals - except getting past peer review. In my discipline (geosciences), sometimes we researchers publish together with students, if they have a particular promising project going on. So, if you think your paper is really good and you are willing to invest more time in it (there are almost no acceptances w/o minor or major revisions), then ask your Prof where he would submit it. That's what Profs are for - they know which journals look for what kind of papers, where it is worth to invest time and where the chances of acceptance are halfway decent. He might even be interested in helping (i.e. co-authoring). You might also write an email to the editor of a promising journal, asking for more info on what their publishing policies are. If you've got the time and energy (and maybe a thick hide), you should definitely give it a try, if only to see what the reviewers think of it. You'll learn a lot.

[Da Skinna]

Farnan: That guy's bio must have been a little surprising, did you read that before or after you chose your topic?

[Farnan]

Farnan: That guy's bio must have been a little surprising, did you read that before or after you chose your topic?

I first went to who was my current professor who is an expert on Africa, and he suggested I go to him as my paper is his current expertise. I plan on going through a few drafts and actually learning something (I've already learned something and I'm only about a book and two thirds in) so it helps to have someone who knows what he is talking about. The US Army War College is near by and maybe he can help me get a chance to interview some people there.

[ivan_the_terrible]

If you're going to use some (maybe even your own) text from this thread in your paper, you may want to have the thread deleted, since many universities now check the internet for plaigarism.