Martin Luther King Jr. - an insurgent??

[hellheaven1987]

An article from the Spring 2010 issue of MHQ (Military History Quarterly Journal), which is quite interesting.

The black insurgency holds lessons for 2010: To counter the insurgency in Afghanistan, for example, the U.S. must 'wrest the information initiative' from the enemy 'to win the important battle of perception.'
—Gen. Stanley McChrystal, 2009

Article.

[Viking Prince]

I have not read the whole article yet, but I suspect the actual answer is no. There were indeed tensions, but the basic strawman was set up in the first paragraphs suggesting that the US was generally supportive. A straman that was easy to tear down.

MLK was a reliigious man who believed that a change in how America treated all citizens was vital. This is not an insurgancy unless you twist the meaning of the word. A snappy way to sell an idea perhaps, but not giving credit to the language.

[hellheaven1987]

You don't need to use terror strategy to be called insurgents.

Either way, I hold my opinion before I saw Farnan's post.

[Boer]

This is not an insurgancy unless you twist the meaning of the word.

That is exactly what the author of the article did. He defines insurgents simply as people not in power trying to change the status quo (if he gave a better definition that I sure missed it). By his definition every everyone protesting the new health care bill is an insurgent. Every lobbying organization would be an insurgent network.

If the definition of insurgency is stretched that far than the word looses all meaning and usefulness.

[torongill]

That is exactly what the author of the article did. He defines insurgents simply as people not in power trying to change the status quo (if he gave a better definition that I sure missed it). By his definition every everyone protesting the new health care bill is an insurgent. Every lobbying organization would be an insurgent network.

If the definition of insurgency is stretched that far than the word looses all meaning and usefulness.

I suppose that is partially the reason for it. The author creates a new definition for "insurrection" and insurgency; Insurrection and insurgency both come from the latin insurgere - "to rise up". So by definition, an insurrection is not "the change of the status quo", it's an uprising, a revolt.

[hellheaven1987]

I suppose that is partially the reason for it. The author creates a new definition for "insurrection" and insurgency; Insurrection and insurgency both come from the latin insurgere - "to rise up". So by definition, an insurrection is not "the change of the status quo", it's an uprising, a revolt.

Interesting, but we have to remember that an uprising can be done peacefully.

[torongill]

Interesting, but we have to remember that an uprising can be done peacefully.

I'm sorry but I don't remember any peaceful uprisings. Do you?

[43rdFoot]

The short answer: No

The long answer: Most definitely no.


MLK wasn't an insurrectionist, by any stretch of the word.

[Argeus the Paladin]

Malaysia, 1960.

The first Malaysian government regained independence in peace.

So did Australia in the early 20th century.

[Farnan]

I think the point the author is trying to make is two fold:

1) Don't focus on the military aspect of an insurgency.

2) Not all insurgencies are bad.

[Viking Prince]

I think the point the author is trying to make is two fold:

1) Don't focus on the military aspect of an insurgency.

2) Not all insurgencies are bad.

So did you have a working meaning to insurgency that does not include a military aspect? I will grant that not all aspects of an insurgency must have exclusively military or organized rebellion aspects, but they must at least have this as an aspect.

Could the civil rights movement have evolved into an insurgency? -- yes. Probably not with MLK as a leader though. MLK is not the Black Panthers or some other potentially violent movement. Without the explicit thread of violence, I cannot see using insurgency to describe an attempt to disrupt and challange a government institution. I still think it is all clever wordsmithing to publish for sale.

[hellheaven1987]

Perhaps, but I am under an impression that MLK did try to use peaceful way to paralyze public service...

[torongill]

I believe there was a remark from Malcolm X that the government was prepared to negotiate with MLK not because they liked him, but because the alternative was "negotiating" with the the black panthers

[Jabberwock]

There were no Black Panthers during that time. They were insignificant in the 60's.

[Viking Prince]

There were no Black Panthers during that time. They were insignificant in the 60's.

They were quite significant in the 1960's, but very little time overlap with MLK -- only the final couple of years of LBJ leading up to Nixon's election. The Black Panthers were a California based organization that went national. MLK was mainly focused on the traditional deep South.

The reason that I brought the Black Panthers up was their reputation of violent confrontation with police. Even they were never really close to becoming an insurgancy despite the fears of Hoover.

[Farnan]

I only read half the article, I'll read more later but this is how I look at the article. But first it must be known that in the study of insurgency, insurgency is a value neutral term just like the term air strike.

Now one of the points it is trying to make is that guerrilla warfare and insurgency are not synonyms. Guerrilla warfare is a tactic used in an insurgency but not the whole insurgency. An insurgency by the definition they use is the use of force to change the status quo by non-electoral means. As the article states force does not mean shooting. Now whether this term is too broad is up to you.

According to this term than the insurgency in say Iraq was not only the armed fighters, but also the mass protests and strikes in Iraq, and the Expatriots making anti-occupation/anti-government statements. Same for Afghanistan.

Thus the author uses the examples of what he believes is one of the good insurgencies (according to his definition) that didn't use the guerilla warfare tactic. In this way he takes focus off killing and onto the other tactics that must be used in counterinsurgency. The most important is message control, which we lack in Afghanistan, and in Iraq till late 2007.

Now to be clear, the author does not encourage the military to have a role on either side of a peaceful domestic insurgency.