Insurgency-Civil War

NousDefionsDoc · 07-20-2005, 17:18

What is the difference between an insurgency and a civil war?

aricbcool · 07-20-2005, 18:02

Without reading up on it...

I would say the difference is...

For one, a civil war denotes a conflict, an insurgency denotes a group of fighters.

Usually, a civil war involves local people overthrowing government run by local people for control of their own country. It will often involve military units who identify themselves as such and fight in the open.

For example: our own Civil War, (correct me if I'm wrong) the "revolucion" that Castro led against his own Cuba. Another example being our liberation of Afghanistan, which was the US (and others) helping one side of the civil war there.

Like a civil war, an insurgency involves local people overthrowing local government, but usually the government in question is local government run or "installed" by a foreign power. While the government will have military units who identify themselves as such, the insurgents are made of local civilians or foriegn fighters who use org. structures and tactics designed to avoid pitched battles, or controlling territory to focus on attrition and wearing the enemy down.

To add to this, an insurgency can cooperate with a friendly conventional military force to achieve strategic goals. Insurgents can fight as part of a Civil War in this role.

Examples of insurgency or insurgents: The American Revolution (while not necessarily as unconventional as most insurgencies, I think it counts), The French Resistance, The VC in Vietnam, and of course our current situation in Iraq.

--Aric

tyrsnbdr · 07-20-2005, 18:10

Ok, I'll bite,

I think that the difference is the level of the conflict. An insurgency is the ground roots of the conflict (i.e. “gorillas in the mountains”) I civil war is when a nation has become divide and has decided that war is the answer to the conflict. In this stage, war is in the open.

lksteve · 07-20-2005, 20:10

Civil War-war between geographic sections or political factions of the same nation

Insurgency-a rising in revolt; uprising; insurrection...

since they brought up insurrection,

Insurrection-a rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt...

yeah, i know...looking it up is cheating...

NousDefionsDoc · 07-20-2005, 20:23

Yeah, but what is the difference?

It is a matter of symmetry and scale?

lksteve · 07-20-2005, 20:52

i would argue that a civil war entails a pulling apart of dissimilar groups within national boundaries, whereas an insurgency could be charaterized as an erosion of a national grouping from within...

one could assume (with all the dangers that entails) that you pose a leading question regarding symmetry; that a civil war may tend toward symmetry (or perhaps better defined factions), toward conventional warfare, both on the battlefield and within the diplomatic arena, whereas an insurgency may lend itself toward unconventional warfare (or asymmetrical warfare, to use the current expression) both as a means of prosecuting the military and the political aspects of the conflict...

as to scale, one could be led by your question, that civil wars may be fought on a scale, once again both militarily and politically, much larger than an insurgency...as i state above, civil wars seek to create separate political entities from within national boundaries, where an insurgency seeks to create a new order within those boundaries...

**Jack Moroney (RIP)** · 07-21-2005, 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

Yeah, but what is the difference?

It is a matter of symmetry and scale?

I think if can be a matter of both. On the scale of the effort, civil war normally falls within the realm of high-intensity conflict where both sides are going at it with everything available, anarchy is a real possibility, and the rule of law may/or may not completely breakdown. Insurgency usually falls within the low intensity conflict arena but can also be a tool/tactic in support of civil war and is asymetric in nature. For the combatant it makes little difference what you call it because when someone has a pistol jammed up your nostril and is about to blow your brains out it all becomes a matter of symantics used by politicos to get military folk to do what they want done but are unwilling to do for themselves.

lksteve · 07-20-2005, 21:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

What is the difference between an insurgency and a civil war?

is there a difference...is an insurgency a subset of civil war, perhaps a phase leading toward civil war...?

do conflicts have to share common attributes to be considered insurgencies, civil wars, insurretions...?

are all civil wars the same...? do they vary, based on a point in time, a unique dynamic, population diversity...?

pulque · 07-21-2005, 04:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by NousDefionsDoc

What is the difference between an insurgency and a civil war?

Insurgencies are protracted by insurgent strategy. Modern civil wars are protracted by treaties.

What do they have in common? Both may be fought with support from outside powers/factions.

jon448 · 07-21-2005, 09:58

I'm going to disagree with aric that the main point of a civil war is to create 2 seperate political entities because if you look some of the more recent examples of civil war in particular the war/ethinic cleansing in Somalia there is no attempt to seperate the state into several political spheres.
My belief is that an insurgency is a movement that because of either the opinion of the people or the power of the actual state must stay underground where as in a civil war the opposition group is powerful and influential enough to be open about who is in control and to fight a convential.
So I'll say that an insurgency can lead to a civil war but it does not fall under a category of civil war.

lksteve · 07-21-2005, 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon448

...if you look some of the more recent examples of civil war in particular the war/ethinic cleansing in Somalia there is no attempt to seperate the state into several political spheres.

Somalia was not about ethinc cleansing...wrong conflict, wrong continent...Somalia was a fight to see which tribe/clan would exert control over a non-existent government...there were regional economic and resource issues involved, as well...Somalis make up about 98% of the population, by ethnic group, so ethinc cleansing could not have been an issue...

Siad Barre had used a divide and conquer strategy among and between the clans during his period as "President"...when he was deposed, this threw the country into turmoil, as the mistrust he had encouraged kept the five principal tribles from coming together to form a government...Barre had manipulated food supplies and government services and when the drought and civil war hit, (not quite simulataneously) clans and tribes from the exterior regions moved on Mogoville to make sure they were going to get their fair share of relief supplies...the presence of folks from out of town only exacerbated the struggle for control of Mogadishu...tribal tensions flared over both the control of the city (and its resources) and control of the levers of power for the non-existant government...control of the countryside was never an issue and it seemed that whoever might control Mogadishu would only control the relief supplies and what international commerce that was and not much else...

Somalia was a civil war, although i would be hard-pressed to state that the intended goal of that war was to change the regime or even to impose a government...in the areas outside the famine-struck South of the country (around Hargeeza, for example), there was little tension, no political violence and folks seemed unaffected by the shenanigans in Mogadishu, Kismayo or Bardera...

jon448 · 07-21-2005, 11:24

Sorry about my confusion on that I mistook the massive starvation for cleansing. I should have stopped to think about for a minute since almost everyone there is muslim and a somali. That plus my real lack of knowledge to prior events should have made me stop, shut up and think about it for a minute.
Thats what I get for trying to rush my response before I went to the gym.

aricbcool · 07-21-2005, 20:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by jon448

I'm going to disagree with aric that the main point of a civil war is to create 2 seperate political entities...

The point I was trying to get across was that a Civil War is caused by two seperate, local political entities coming to blows.

The end result (or main point, as you put it) is really up to the participants...

Regards,
Aric

NousDefionsDoc · 07-27-2005, 19:19

I disagree with AL and agree with Colonel Sir.

AL where does a classic Maoist insurgency fall within your "ends do not matter" scenario? The goal is to develop the insurgency to the point where conventional military operations can bbe undertaken, is it not?

It would seem to me the difference between the two is nothing more than scale and symmetry - semantics if the two sides are even close to symmetrical or the lesser side understands the center of gravity and it is easily attacked. I would also argue that Iraq is in a civil war and the US is the only thing holding it down at all.

The goal of any conflict is always to win 100% of what your side wants. And no one ever starts a fight with the intention of sharing power as the end result.

**Roguish Lawyer** · 07-27-2005, 19:29

Bard O'Neill calls the U.S. civil war an insurgency.