Terrorism and Insurgency
 

Any ideas as to how to better deliniate between terrorism and terrorist acts carried out as part of an insurgency?

I like your question very much. However it requires more than an off the cuff discussion. I'll be back.

Excellent. I'm looking forward to it.

I'm looking forward to the discussion, may not add much but am here to learn:

Terry

LOL - yeah right. Have to be manana, client call.

Ok Jimbo, I'm ready to be your Huckleberry. First, how about we talk about why we need to deliniate?

OK. We need to deliniate because in order to defeat either one, we need to understand the nature of the problem. We don't want to treat a symptom, we want to treat the illness or injury. Terrorism in support of an insurgency is just a tactic, terrorism as a strategy is a different beast.

That's why.

Ok.

Since "terrorism as a strategy" implies an internal decision - how will we know?

The matter is somewhat complicated by insurgent use of propaganda to mask any true intention, but I think a fair way to tell is to see if the insurgents take and hold territory and implement the changes they advocate in said areas.

People often give away what they are thinking without saying it.

Yes they do. However, let's take the FARC. They say they want to change the government (then lay down weapons and go back to farming), yet they take and hold territory and kidnap and bomb civilian targets.

If you ask them about the terrorism, the response is usually, they didn't want to, it was forced on them - a recurrent theme in a lot of cases.

As I understand it, terrorism is a tactic. But terrorism is defined (in part) in the other thread as being "politically motivated."

I am having a difficult time thinking of a politically motivated use of terrorism that cannot be defined as part of an insurgency.

Maybe an isolated incident of "lashing out" by a dissatisfied person or group, as opposed to a sustained campaign intended to replace the government? Can't think of one right now . . .

A significant amount of the terrorism that occured in the 60s through the mid 90s was not part of an insurgency. N17 in Greece, M19 in Colombia, Baader-Minehoff in Germany, ETA in Spain, IRA in Ireland, etc... Those are just off the top of my head. I don't think any of those groups made an effort to control territory beyond a few city-blocks at a time.

Terrorism, as a strategy (i.e. an end in itself), is called nihilism. The Aun Shinrikyo comes to mind. So do numerous 19th century Russian revolutionaries, such as Chernychevsky and his cronies.

But some of the groups you mention above do have some end-state other than total destruction, they just vary as to the means of achieving them. Recall that Marxism advocated spreading by "spontaneous uprisings." Although Lenin, pulling from others, eventually took a more organized approach to revolution, pure Marxism essentially said that there was a great tension in the working class, and there would be some event that would eventually catalyze the tension into spontaneous revolution. Much of the terrorism of the 60's was this kind of Marxist groping - attacks meant to put a spark to the tinder of working class tension (that didn't turn out to be there). As long as the group has a coherent ideological objective, whether or not holding ground is their goal seems to me a relative inessential for the purposes of classification - at least at the macro level.

IMO, the appropriate classification is by the end-state the group wants to bring about. If it is destruction for its own sake, then I think "nihilistic terrorist organization" is the appropriate category. If it is the recapture of land and elimination of a physical enemy (e.g. - the IRA), then I think some political description is appropriate. If it is to bring the world into Dar al Islam at the edge of the sword, forcing all to submit to Allah's will (as interpreted through the gang of priests that want to see all of this brought about), then I think "militant Islamic terrorism" is the right category. The end state a group is seeking is the best key to understanding their motives, what tactics they are likely to employ and against which targets. The ideology is the key to understanding the end state.

D9, excellent post.

We may be able to make a Special Forces soldier out of you yet.

TR

I disagree completely. While it is important to know a group's stated goal and the philosophy behind that goal, one might argue that what the groups actually DO is much more important in combating them.

Yes, the IRA said they wanted England out of Ireland and that they had an 'army' to help them accomplish that goal. However, tactically, they never progressed beyond terrorist attacks. With the exception of a few blocks on occasion, they never held any territory. I can not think of one single insurgency that achieved any degree of success without controlling some amount of land.

This is also wrong. In the business, groups that you describe as nihilistic are more commonly referred to as "apocalyptic"; Aum Shinryko, followers of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Turner Diary adherents. These are groups whose goal is to bring about the end of the world. (Many of these groups reference the Book of Revelations without conscious effort)

The Marxist groups that you note were, as far as I can tell, using terrorism (coupled with some propaganda) as a strategy to being about the spark in the proletariat.