When does an insurgency morph into something different? When does the number of separatists, insurgents, terrorist, rebels etc...go from being a mob, dead-enders etc...to becoming an army in the field?
One thing we aren't seeing is 4th generation warfare. Check this out from Wikipedia...
Fourth generation warfare is defined as conflicts which involve the following elements:Think about it.
- Are complex and long term
- Terrorism (tactic)
- A non-national or transnational base –highly decentralized
- A direct attack on the enemy's culture, including genocidal acts against civilians.
- Highly sophisticated psychological warfare, especially through media manipulation and lawfare
1. ISIS and the separatists almost equal the number of state forces they're facing.
2. ISIS and the separatists have demonstrated that they're able to support and equip their fighters in the field.
3. They have been able to buy or steal weapons that place them on an equal footing with state forces.
4. They are engaging in stand up fights against state forces and AREN'T employing classic insurgent tactics.
We aren't seeing classic insurgencies. This is something new.
Ideological armies that assemble with enough power to fight state forces? That is shocking. If this is heralding a new form of warfare then peace as we know it is out the window. These types of peoples movements/armies can gather and unless killed in the crib morph into something that will require coalition power to put out.
Non-state armies, with sophisticated weapons capable of matching small nation forces in the field is a recipe for chaos.
These two wars aren't really insurgencies. They're something else and that should concern us all.
There are also some differences:
ReplyDelete- ISIS is based on religious fanatics and religious background (that made them a lot more brutal)
- ISIS is fighting for ISIS, not for other nation goals and under foreign command
- ISIS supply itself, the don't receive regular shipments of weapons and men from other nation (or maybe they do?)
Above that, more or less the same thing...
Solomon
ReplyDeleteWould the Pirates of Old fit in the description here? Whether they were European Pirates in the Atlantic or Barbary pirates in north africa, they displayed almost the same attributes as ISIS. They did not have luxury of Internet but word of mouth publicity meant that people still joined them in large numbers from multiple countries and ethinicities. They were brutal. Matched any conventional navy for particular engagements. And they also had the shadowy hand and dirty politics of a third party sponser/refuge provider. And in case of the Barbary Pirates....religion was also a factor.
I would say an insurgent seeks to topple a 'government' without itself acting as one.
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, Ukraine faces an insurgency, the seppo goal (currently) is to make eastern Ukraine ungovernable rather than to take over governance.
They can't collect the bins each week and don't try, they merely shoot the other sides bin collectors.
Although they will eventually take on the role of government if they win.
Isis are different.
They aren't seeking to directly challenge and replace the governments, setting up a state infrastructure as they go.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete@Ideological armies that assemble with enough power to fight state forces?@ Isnt this what Mao tse tung advocated as part of a sucesful insurgency?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteComparing ISIS with DNR and LNR is quite a far stretch remember Ukrainian goverment itself came to power in a coup.
ReplyDeleteSol, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of 4th Generation warfare:
ReplyDelete4th Generation Warfare is not synonymous with insurgency. While 4th generation warfare can utilize insurgency as a mode of operation, just because an insurgency exists doesn't mean that it is 4th generation warfare.
How would you explain centuries of insurgency warfare that existed BEFORE the 4th generation concept was hatched by Martin van Crevald and William Lind?
1st generation warfare is old-fashioned warfare, tribal conflict, bands of Vikings, etc. primitive, etc. where anyone can fight anyone. Tribe vs tribe, angry villagers against neighboring village, the mason's guild fighting the butcher's guild, a city state fighting another city state. No one has an exclusive claim to the legitimate use of force, anyone can use it against anyone else. Private armies, bands of mercenaries, tribal militia, neighborhood watch.
2nd generation warfare is post-Treaty of Westphalia and the rise of the nation state and the exclusive use of legitimate force. Only the prince or president or king, whoever leads the state, has the right to use lethal force and maintain standing militaries. The warfare becomes more rationale, units and leaders receive standardized size, equipment roles, division of labor: infantry, cavalry, artillery, sappers, quartermaster i.e. the rationalization of military force. Militaries have strict line of command-and-control. You need to check with higher command echelon as they move the chess pieces on the board. Command push oriented warfare. Battles are fought on a single battlefield where the commander has visual awareness of the battlefield and can control the battle from his tent.
3rd generation warfare: It starts to evolve due to the increase lethality of warfare. Machineguns, rapid-fire artillery, smokeless powder bolt-action rifles, etc. make it impossible for commanders to allow forces to mass where they can be easily targeted. Battle field becomes larger, troops cannot mass in the open, commanders are miles away from the front-line and rely on telegraph, field phones, couriers. Due to the fact they cannot see battlefield conditions, they cannot respond to battlefield events in a timely manner. The Germans see the slack in the system and start to develop storm troop tactics where small detachments recon a target, coordinate artillery fire, creep under cover and camouflage, and overwhelm enemy defenses, then exploit the penetration. ON the defensive end, the German also develop flexible defenses in depth, giving tactical control to local commanders who have a better grasp of the conditions. They can fall back, using strong points to survive and launch counterattacks, sucking in enemy attackers, cutting them off.
Eventually this is married to mechanized warfare to become what is known as 'blitzkrieg' tactics where recon-pull is used to identify weak points in enemy defense and local commander on sight can use his judgement to launch an attack, penetrate into the enemy's rear and roll up the enemies defense. The key here is recon-pull replaces of 3rd Gen. replaces the Command-push of 2nd generation warfare. A 3rd generation force can defeat a larger 2nd generation force because it is operating in the OODA loop of the 2nd force. The 3rd generation force can identify, orient, attack and exploit the 2nd force before its commanders can detect what is occurring and respond. Think of the Germans in the Ardennes in 1940, bursting thru Sedan while French commanders wait for more info and cannot respond quick enough.
A little correction... Viking was a thing, an expedition. The correct or rather more correct name should be Nords if we want to generalize group in to single "formation".
Delete4th Generation warfare: The arrival of nuclear weapons make open warfare between superpowers improbable. States start to sponsor terrorist groups, guerrilla movements. While at first, states sponsor these group to attack allies, etc. of their rival superpowers, other groups start to splinter off and eschew the control of superpowers. End of the cold war and many of these groups are left alone. In other parts, criminal organization such as drug cartels, etc. start to maintain their own militaries. Rather than the state having exclusive control over the use of force and military power, 4th generation makes it nearly impossible for states to control/defeat non-state actors.
ReplyDeleteBecause the state has difficult combating 4th generation threats, other non-state sponsored groups start to develop to defense themselves against terrorist, guerrillas, drug cartels, etc. Militias, unofficial neighborhood watch, centered around ethnic groups, religious affiliation, geographic convenience.
think of the Mexican cartels as a non-state threat and the citizens militias that arise because of the corruption and ineptitude of the Mexican government as an example of 4th generation warfare.
Insurgency is a means, not the why of 4th Generation warfare. 4th generation warfare is about state losing legitimacy in its ability to respond to non-state threats and rise of other non-state actors to combat them.
Fourth Generation warfare is about the state losing sole legitimate claim to the use of force or conflict AND due to its inability to defeat non-state threat, the responding increase in non-state forces to combat non-state threats.
Examples of non-state 4th generation threats: Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Somali Pirates, drug cartels, gangs
Examples of non-state 4th generation reaction groups: Militias i.e. Minutemen on the Mex. Border, Mexican militias developing to battle cartel violence, hacking group like Anonymous
i beg to differ. what we're seeing with ISIS and the Separatists isn't a reaction group. neither is it a threat group.
Deletethey have the hallmarks of field armies that control land, populations, production centers, and are capable of fighting nation states. the reaction groups listed don't have the power to take on any nation state...even small ones.
insurgency is a form of combat. it has certain characteristics. even with that ISIS and the Separatists don't exhibit the classic form.
this is something new. you can attempt to downplay it but its out there for the world to see.
You didn't even read my post. I said ISIS IS a non-state threat, not a reaction group.
Delete4th Generation warfare and Insurgencies are NOT synonymous.
4th Generation warfare is about the rise of non-state actors using violence instead of it being the sole domain of the state.
In this case, yes, ISIS is attempting to field an army.
Just like Hezbollah has fielded an army.
In terms of the Ukrainian separatists, they are state-sponsored. They are an extension of the Russian state and are supplied directly by them. While politically they claim independence from Ukraine, they are sponsored by Russia.
and you're not attempting to understand the point that i'm making. these aren't insurgencies! state sponsored? state supplied. if they did not have the backing of the population then they would have been defeated long ago. we've had too many discussions about the eastern part of the country basically being Russia-West. Hezbollah HAS NOT tried to go toe-to-toe with the Israeli's!
Deletewhy can't you wrap your head around this. these two aren't using IEDs, sniper or hit and run tactics as the main effort in their fight. they're standing up and engaging govt forces on an equal footing! additionally their numbers are impressive. when talking about insurgents the numbers are usually a couple hundred, maybe a couple thousand.
we're seeing ISIS and the Separatists with thousands of troops. enough to field several battalions of infantry etc....
this is a different dog.
I didn't say they were insurgencies. I don't think they are either.
DeleteWhat I am saying is you are conflating 4th Generation warfare WITH Insurgencies. They are not interchangeable terms.
4th generation warfare is not HOW you go to war, it's WHO goes to war, in this case, non-state actors.
And since the Separatists are state-sponsored, it isn't technically 4th Generation warfare i.e. it is neither an insurgency NOR is it a 4th Generation warfare.
I would classify them a variation of Hybrid Warefare. Here is some late night reading material: http://jsou.socom.mil/JSOU%20Publications/JSOU%2013-4_McCulloh,Johnson_Hybrid%20Warfare_final.pdf
DeleteIt is a combination of backing from local populations AND the suppression or removal of the rest.
DeleteAs far as state backing, we all know who backs the Ukrainian rebels, but ISIS also had a lot of help when it formed in its current form. It was all the rage back then to help Assad's opponents, which is part of it an other part is the age old struggle between Shia and Sunni. Our 'great friends' Saudi Arabia and Turkey certainly helped and supported what became ISIS later on and may very well still do so!
In a way ISIS did hurt itself, by peeing off a large part of the Jordanian population. They lost a lot of support there. This is partly a popularity contest and wile we, the west, will never be altogether popular in that region , it is still quite logical for ISIS to lose popularity among a lot of Muslims. This is why the propaganda machine that ISIS also has is so important for them.
Let me use an old and often misused, spit on term: hearts and minds.
Convince or bribe potential supporters of your opponent and you win.
But what differentiates the 2006 campaign and likely the 20014/15 wars in Syria and Iraq are that nobody has stood up and said: "That's it, Iran we know you have these weapons, we know you have dealings with Syrian and Hezbollah, thus you get to eat steel on a guilt by association basis."
ReplyDeleteAs crule and arbitrary as this may seem, it is _exactly_ how things were done in the Cold War when a bipolar focus meant crap like this could not be allowed to escalate. The more we disengage and pull back from these regions of lawless barbarity, the more state and non-state will maneuver against each other to cancel out the influence of other state agencies in increasingly aggressive and mazcat costly moves.
Which is fine. Because we are _not_ our brother's keeper and thus keeping a score card of who is playing on what team is only important to the extent that it threatens oil.
Finally, you're all wrong when you say that these forces are fielding regular army sized units. If that were true, you would see regular army sized ton:mile requirements to maneuver and sustain. You are instead seeing small bands of tightly cohesive, viciously in-your-face bandits wiping out key leadership figures and then establishing cadre` groups which hand out rule books to the lowest social stratum with the mandate (not a request) to set up a strictly traditional, Sharia state.
We in The West don't want to admit this because it essentially means 800 billion and climbing worth of materiel investment in a primitive population without any real social cohesion of their own was a complete waste because the will is not there to make use of the firepower.
At which point, the only words summonable to deal with the obvious are:
Told. Ya. So.