Comparison of Insurgency and Guerilla Warfare - Term Paper Example

Comparison of Insurgency and Guerilla Warfare Roll No: Teacher: 11th October 2009 Comparison of Insurgency andGuerilla Warfare The terms ‘insurgency” and “guerrilla warfare” are often used interchangeably in describing an action undertaken by the opponents of a central governing authority. These type of actions can be based on a variety of factors, including politics, economics, religion, ethnicity, and even criminal enterprise. Insurgency and guerrilla warfare are similar in that they can be multi-faceted, multi-polar movements. Both insurgency and guerrilla warfare can be classified as irregular warfare. Insurgency and guerrilla warfare rely on support from the general population for their survival and effectiveness. Both insurgency and guerrilla warfare are usually combated with counterinsurgency measures. However, as transposable as the terminology may seem, there is a distinct difference between insurgency and guerrilla warfare. The Oxford English Dictionary defines an insurgent as “one who rises in revolt against constituted authority; a rebel who is not recognized as a belligerent” (Oxford English Dictionary 1989). Insurgency, according to the United States Department of Defense, is an organized movement to overthrow a constituted government through the use of subversion and armed conflict. In order to understand insurgents and insurgency, one must be familiar with the many forms that insurgency may take. A legitimate insurgency can be something as innocuous as passive resistance to something as extreme as civil war. The common thread among the various forms of insurgencies is that they are all activities. An insurgency is usually directed at changing the policies of the governing authority or the governmental structure through means not usually used by or sanctioned by the governing system. An insurgency is a political effort undertaken with a specific aim. Insurgency as defined earlier on is based on a group opposition that is considered quite frightening because of its perceived consequences. The governments of a state consider insurgency as a phenomenon with the help of which, some forceful group or gang tries to change the government. Insurgency is not ignorable as it keeps the capacity of affecting masses residing at a place. The insurgents work in groups by means of proper planning and keep some kinds of aims, which they ensure to get accomplished with the passage of time and with their efforts (Rubin 2009). As insurgency is not a negligible activity, therefore, not only the insurgents but also the authorities share pressure with one another. The authorities are required to control the insurgency by very efficacious measures as insurgents are usually powerful and aggressive in accomplishing their set ambitions. Although insurgencies all share the same base characteristics, the tactics and methods used may vary with the individual movements. Insurgencies are typically encompassed by four specific elements, which include: the formation of cell networks that maintain secrecy; the use of terrorism to create insecurity among the general population with the intent of driving citizens to the insurgent movement for protection; cultivation of community support; and, attacks against the central governing authority (Tomes 2004). However, all four of these elements need not be necessary in order for a legitimate insurgency to exist. Insurgencies need not utilize terrorism as a means to control the populace; in fact, many insurgencies garner support among the public by employing tactics such as guerrilla warfare. Insurgents make use of terrorism due to which, terror exists in any community due to which, there is a sense of insecurity and uncertainty. The public of a country or area feels that the government is unable to provide them with their due rights of security and stability due to which, the authorities are considered ineligible and less effective (Rubin 2009). By considering such features, the insurgents get backing by the general public for the accomplishments of their set ambitions. Terrorism is a part of insurgency but it is not against the citizens but the government or authorities. Insurgents also get help from general public by various means such as guerrilla warfare, spying and many others. Guerrilla warfare can be a part of insurgency but it cannot always be considered as wholly insurgency. Insurgency can take support of guerrilla warfare sometimes but not always. Guerrilla warfare is a form of combat in which small groups of mobile combatants wage war against a large, cumbersome, formally organized opponent. Guerrilla warfare is focused upon the formation of small itinerant units that rely upon the support of the local population to assist the rebel forces in the implementation of their plans. Guerrilla warfare, unlike terrorism, focuses its strikes upon the empowered political faction and those who are employed by it to maintain control. It does not seek to frighten the public into siding with the insurgents out of fear but rather it looks to enjoin the general public in its fight against the oppressor. Guerrilla warfare does not aim to harass the general public; the participants of guerrilla warfare try to facilitate the public by helping them out against the cruel authorities (Tung 1961). The public and the participants of guerrilla warfare move side by side for fighting against terror and autocratic rulers. The participants of guerrilla warfare are mostly rebellious people who see the authorities or ruling party as oppressors and intimidators. “Guerrilla warfare is, at its simplest, a direct reversal of the logic of regular warfare. Where regular armies aim to concentrate force to achieve a decision with maximum speed, guerrilla forces disperse and conduct small-scale operations over an indefinite period of time. The strength of this form of warfare is its resilience; its weakness is the inability of small forces to confront regular armies directly. If a guerrilla strategy is to secure victory, this can only happen if it can debilitate the regular force, or if the guerrilla force can transform itself into a force capable of defeating the regular force in open battle” (Guerrilla Warfare 2009). This is one of the three phases as outlined by General Mao Tse Tung in his famous work, On Guerrilla Warfare (1961). The guerrilla force has to adopt certain strategies in order to defeat the organized army of the oppressor because the guerrilla warfare is usually conducted against well organized forces and authorities. As the guerrilla warfare is conducted by means of small guerrilla groups, therefore, special attention needs to be given for fighting against a regular army, which is much greater in size and is, structured (Tung 1961). The guerrillas are required to plan according to the needs of the situations, in which, they are going to fall in future. The guerrillas are able to win the war against the regular organized forces if they are backed by the public and the public shows no reliance towards the government or ruling party and is uncertain about the efficacy of the measures taken by the authorities. Ernesto Che Guevera, who played a pivotal role in Fidel Castro’s successful two year guerrilla campaign that deposed the Batista regime in Cuba, expounded upon the characteristics of guerrilla warfare in his book, which has been termed a “practical guide” to guerrilla combat. In it, Guevera (2009) proposed four theses of guerrilla warfare: popular forces could win a war against a regular army so long as the people realized that legal processes were no longer viable; it was not necessary to wait for all objective conditions to exist before launching the guerrilla war since the revolutionary point of activity could create them; the countryside would be the place where armed struggle should take place while clandestine activity should be undertaken in urban areas; and, in order to be successful, the revolution must be international. Although Guevera (2009) claimed to have never read Mao Tse Tung’s tome on guerrilla warfare, his theses were strongly compared to the Maoist theory of peoples war. This is not surprising since both Che Guevera and Mao Tse Tung were insurgents who led their armies in attempts to overthrow existing governments through the use of guerrilla tactics. The current “War on Terror” presents some insight into the relationship between insurgency and guerrilla warfare. During 2006 and 2007, the Taliban insurgents fighting in Afghanistan applied a three-track strategy which utilized guerrilla tactics in conjunction with information operations and asymmetric attacks such as terrorist style bombings. The key strength of the insurgency was the leaders’ ability to integrate guerrilla warfare tactics with asymmetric attacks to support their movement.  In its attempts to counterattack such insurgencies in the Middle East, the United States military factions failed to recognize that each insurgency must be individually approached and different tactics must be applied to combat these very different situations. The military continually misidentified insurgents with limited aims and legitimate grievances as part of a coordinated worldwide terror network. In order for the “War on Terror” to be successful, the powers in control must learn how to disentangle the various insurgent strands, develop strategies that deal with global threats, avoid local conflicts where possible, and win them where necessary (Kilcullen 2009). While the terms are loosely interchanged, there is a definite difference between “insurgency” and “guerrilla warfare”. Although most of the commonly referenced insurgencies involve a concentrated effort against a sitting governmental authority through the use of unconventional warfare, insurgency can be undertaken by any member of a society through a variety of means. An insurgency does not necessarily utilize any type of warfare. Guerrilla warfare, on the other hand, by its very nomenclature suggests the utilization of warfare in its movement. Guerrilla warfare is perhaps the “middle of the road” tool used by insurgents as it is not as pacified as some methods (such as political protest) and yet it does not go to the extreme as do terrorism by insurgents and civil war. The main distinction between the terms is that an insurgency is an action, while guerrilla warfare is one of many methods that may be utilized by insurgents to accomplish their goals. Therefore, it is quite clear that insurgency and guerrilla warfare are quite changed activities that require different kinds of designs and planning. While involved in an insurgency, the insurgents can adopt guerrilla warfare as a warfare strategy like many other warfare strategies while the guerrilla warfare is not always the first option for the insurgents. Guerrilla warfare does not deal with terrorism as terrorism takes general public into its consideration and is also placed against them while guerrilla forces work with the general public and cause no terror for them. They are usually backed by general public. The insurgency is not always backed by the people of the state and it is usually conducted for overthrowing the governmental authorities as they are not considered suitable for the state. Bibliography Guerrilla Warfare. Answers Corporation, 2009. http://209.85.129.132/search?q=cache:cV4c6zfxgIYJ:www.answers.com/topic/guerrilla-1+The+strength+of+this+form+of+warfare+is+its+resilience;+its+weakness+is+the+inability+of+small+forces+to+confront+regular+armies+directly.&cd=1&hl=ru&ct=clnk&client=opera (accessed September 27, 2009) Guevera, Ernesto. Guerrilla Warfare. New York: Classic House Books, 2009. Kilcullen, David. Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Rubin, Barry M. Conflict and Insurgency in the Contemporary Middle East London, New York: Taylor & Francis Routledge, 2009. Tomes, Robert R. 2004. “Relearning Counterinsurgency Warfare”. 2004. www.carlisle.army.mil (accessed September 27, 2009) Tung, Mao Tse. On Guerrilla Warfare. Champaign, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1961. Read More