Insurgency: What's In A Name?

by Mark Monday and Gary Stubblefield

Insurgency: What's in a Name?

An Integrated Look at Non-violence, Terrorism, Guerrilla Warfare, Revolution, Civil War and Coups

Understanding--and dealing with--insurgency and insurgents requires familiarity with the five forms of resistance. Until the form that the insurgency takes is clearly understood it cannot be dealt with.

"Insurgency" has a broad enough meaning to cover activities as disparate as passive resistance and civil war. Yet it lacks the emotional loading of words like "terrorist" or "rebel." For that reason "Insurgency" may be the best term for what some people refer to as "revolution"--the activities that others call "liberation."

Insurgency is the refusal of people who are indigenous to an area to actively cooperate with, or express support of, the current authority figures. Insurgency is an activity. Though some forms may appear passive, insurgency is "action."

An insurgency is usually directed at changing the policies of the governing authority, the personnel of the authority, or the governmental structure, by means not usually used in--or sanctioned by--the existing system. Insurgency is a zone between politics and international war. If war, as Clausewitz declared, is "diplomacy by other means," then insurgency is certainly "politics by other means."

Half a dozen forms, or methods, of insurgency can be identified. The six major forms of Insurgency, in a line-up that approximates the increasing levels of violence, are:

1. Civilian Defense/Non- Violent Resistance
2. Coup
3. Guerrilla Warfare
4. Terrorism
5. Riot/Revolution
6. Civil War.

Each form is distinct from the other five. Yet each is subject to change, or evolution, into another form. As an example, Coup or Civil War forms--or both-- often follow a phase of true Revolution.

The various forms of insurgency are not as independent of each other as the chart suggests. In the real world, an insurgency may ebb and flow across the categories shown on the chart. At one time it may take on the characteristics of guerrilla war, for instance, and then accelerate in levels of violence to civil war, or retreat to terrorist tactics. In the course of a long insurgency the form may be--probably will be-- altered many times.

Non-violence

At one end of the scale, very near politics, is a form of resistance known among experts as Non-violence or Civilian Defense (not to be confused with civil defense). This is an active, not a passive, method of waging insurgent war although some people mistakenly term it "passive resistance." The idea behind Non-violence is to deprive a government of any popular support, to deny the government the sense of legitimacy it needs to exercise power.

Often the so-called "instruments of coercion," the police and army, are the targets of non-violent attack. Non-violent warfare may, but does not in general practice, seek extensive changes in either the personnel or the overall structure and policies of government. It is a compromise form of insurgency. By peaceful--but purposeful-- demonstrations of dissatisfaction, people show they feel change is needed, but that compromise is possible.

There are three main methods of Non-violence:

A. Non-violent Protest
B. Non-violent Non-cooperation
C. Non-violent Intervention.

Non-violent Protest is symbolism in action; it produces an awareness among targeted groups that an opposition exists and demands to be heard. Its greatest effect is on the most tyrannical governments. Non-violent Protest involves the least danger to participants of all forms--but that may still contitute a deadly danger when dealing with repressive regimes. Marches, picketing, vigils, "haunting" of government officials, pranks and emigration are the earmarks of Non-violent Protest.

Non-violent Non-cooperation, the second form of non-violence, destroys the efficiency of government when large enough numbers of the population employ it. While Non-violent Non-cooperation requires a great deal of manpower to be totally effective, it has one advantage: Little or no training need be given participants. Strikes and slowdowns--boycotts of everything from eggs and tomatoes to elections and politicians--characterize Non-violent Non-cooperation.

The third in the trilogy of non-violence--Non-violent Intervention--is more directly challenging to the government than either of the other two forms. Small numbers of people can have far-reaching effects, provided the participants remain disciplined and undaunted by opposition and repression, even jail and execution. This is probably the most difficult of the forms to use successfully. Non-violent Intervention can involve fasting, sit-ins, obstruction, invasions of buildings or restricted areas, and parallel governments.

It is important for those using any of these methods that all participants remain non-violent--even when faced with violence from opponents. Under the best of circumstances this is difficult when faced with the realities of agents provocateur and brutality.

There are many familiar examples of non-violent insurgency: Ghandi's resistance to the British; U.S. Civil Rights marches; the refusal of American colonists to buy goods from England; the boycott of Captain Boycott by Irish peasants (from which the practice got its name); the 1926 British General Strike and the 1963 political prisoners' strike in Vorkuta, U.S.S.R. Another outstanding recent example was the 1968 Czech response to the Soviet invasion. That involved nearly-spontaneous resistance; advance planning and leadership were nil. Nonetheless it subverted some of the best Soviet troops, made them politically unreliable and weakened the Red Army's control over the population.

Terrorism

A step up the scale of violence--a long step--is the terrorist method of insurgency. Terrorism is a poor means of waging an insurgent war, if the real goal of the insurgent is to actually win an objective rather than simply engage in fights, frights and flights of fantasy.

Terrorism is an attempt to govern, or oppose government, through physical or psychological intimidation. It is the weapon of the politically weak and, often, the morally bankrupt of any society. People generally resort to this form of insurgency only when other forms of irregular warfare are denied them by lack of followers or the availability of other suitable weapons or means.

Three things characterize true terrorism.

First, the individual terrorist (or group of terrorists) must have either the means or perceived potential of violence.

Secondly, there is an impersonal frame of reference to the violence. Victims are chosen by chance, not reason. The attacker has no particular, personal, score to settle with the individual victim.

The third, key, hallmark is that the terrorist INTENDS to spread fear and confusion beyond the immediate victim.

Terrorism is a psychological attack as well as physical assault. Terrorism relies on good communications to be effective. In the modern world passive, if unthinking, help from the communications media help the terrorist achieve the maximum effect. In fact, Terrorism as a tactic is totally unworkable without mass media assistance. Denied publicity, the terrorist becomes simply another mugger or two-bit thug.

There are five general types of Terrorism:

A. Political Terrorism
B. Non-political Terrorism
C. Quasi-Terrorism
D. Limited Political Terrorism
E. State Terrorism.

Political Terrorism is fear generated for political purposes. It is what most people refer to as "terrorism."

Non-political Terrorism seeks something other than political ends. Some activities of organized crime fall into this category, as when a "stoolie" is killed or when a borrower from a loan shark pays off in broken bones as a reminder to other debtors to remit. Psychiatric cases are grouped in this category --if they are not grouped separately under Psychotic Terrorism.

Quasi-Terrorism is the use of terrorist techniques during the commission of a crime. An example would be the taking of hostages during a bank robbery. Quasi-terrorists will often adopt the language and rhetoric of political terrorists when they are trapped. This serves as a method of self-justification, a way of hiding basic greed from the world by claiming the violence is being done for ennobling reasons.

Limited Political Terrorism is sometimes called "statement making." While the acts are designed to bring about a limited political end, they are not intended to overthrow an entire governmental or social structure. Some assassinations fall into this category.

State Terrorism is the control of a population--by a government - - primarily through fear. Not only opponents of governments, but governments themselves, employ terrorism. In fact, the term comes from the actions of one of the French governments-of-the-moment, the Committee of Public Safety, headed by Robespierre. In 1793 the "Reign of Terror" gave the world the word. Finding examples of countries practicing State Terrorism is not difficult. The hard part is choosing an example from among so many excellent examples, however the Pol Pot government of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia/Kampuchea must rank in the world's top five.

Guerrilla War

Many governments have a self-serving habit of calling all violent opposition "terrorism." Governments sometimes lie. Not all physical, or even violent, confrontations can be described as "terroristic."

Terrorism attacks the public; the entire population is at risk. Guerrillas attack legitimate governmental and military targets. The corollary is that Guerrillas are legitimate combatants, subject to the rules of war. They are people who should, themselves, be treated as soldiers according to the rules of war.

It is crucial--though somewhat difficult--to make the distinction between some guerrilla operations and terrorism since one is a legitimate, though deadly, act and the other is a criminal offense.

The U.S. Army, in that gentle, dust-dry way it has of explaining things, says guerrilla war is comprised of "combat operations conducted in enemy-held territory by predominantly indigenous forces on military or para-military basis to reduce the combat effectiveness, industrial capacity, and morale of the enemy. Guerrilla operations are conducted by relatively small groups employing offensive tactics."

Whatever that definition may lack, it does point up the fact that guerrillas are more military-oriented in thought and deed than terrorists. Guerrilla targets are military personnel (or police) rather than civilians. Guerrillas, by the nature of their offensive, must rely on significant popular support for their activities. Terrorists neither need, nor seek, such support since their activities are directed toward control of the population through fear. Guerrillas employ mobility, elusiveness and surprise to compensate for their weaknesses in men and equipment- -and they comply with the recognized rules of warfare. By following those rules they earn the right to be treated as soldiers, not criminals.

Under the most recent internationally-accepted version of the the rules of war, guerrillas must have a responsible commander who will answer for the conduct of subordinates; operations must be carried out in ways that comply with other customs and rules of warfare (no dum-dum bullets may be used, no hostages may be taken, for instance), and arms must be carried openly during the time the guerrillas are visible to an adversary while engaged in a military deployment. [Ed. Note: While the U.S. does recognize the legitimacy of Guerrilla activities, it subscribes to a previous version of the rules of war which is more restrictive than the most recent one.]

In general, it can be said that true guerrillas:

hold little or no territory

attack when and where they consider the opposition weakest, and withdraw when the enemy gains strength

derive the bulk of their support from the people of the area where they are operating--though there may be some outside help, euphemistically called "sponsoring power" assistance. Where there is a sponsoring power, the assistance will normally be in the forms of arms or equipment; sometimes it will include providing a "safe- area" across an international border; rarely will it involve sending "advisors."

Mao Tse Tung not only developed the analogy that guerrillas were like fish--in that they needed the water of popular support to survive- -but he also defined the three stages of guerrilla operations. His phases have become a standard description of the development of a successful insurgent guerrilla war. Today they are as readily accepted by monarchists as Marxists.

The first phase is an organization, consolidation and preservation stage. During this period the infrastructure is developed; much use is made of small-scale hit-and-run raids for propaganda, morale and training. In this phase attacks are allowed only when the insurgent guerrilla has overwhelming superiority in firepower, good position and surprise. Since small, successful, and successive attacks--even if conducted on a small scale--damage the morale of government troops and tarnish the image of efficiency of the government, the propaganda effect of the attacks is more important at this stage than is the actual damage done to men or material.

In the second phase, the guerrilla moves from small-scale operations to more ambitious attacks. The second phase is sometimes call "progressive expansion." While the hit-and-run tactic is still used, the guerrilla expands the base area and strengthens his control over that section of territory. Government-controlled areas that previously were immune to attack are sacked. Government officials, and those in the power-elite structure, find there is no place they are safe.

The third phase of guerrilla operations is a decision stage. Guerrilla-type tip-and-run tactics are abandoned because the insurgents have grown large enough, strong enough, that they can oppose the government in conventional ways. Mao suggested this phase was like Civil War.

Civil War

Civil War is generally the end-product of some other form of insurgent warfare. It occurs when opponents are roughly matched in men, equipment and determination. It involves relatively large bodies of military personnel. Tactical and strategic planning, as well as operations, are carried on much as they would be during a conventional war.

Because civil wars usually grow from some other type of insurgency, it is difficult to imagine one occurring spontaneously. The American Civil War and the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s were started by regional and national coup attempts. The so-called American Revolution was actually a civil war which had its origins in Non- violence, but it also had aspects of a legislative coup. This "revolution" developed into nearly- conventional combat as in a Civil War, but there were also aspects of Guerrilla operations, primarily in the American South.

Barring the sudden and early collapse of the government, as happened in Batista's Cuba, guerrilla wars must go through a civil war stage if the insurgents are to gain power.

Of the various forms of insurgent warfare, Terrorism is least likely to produce Civil War. Terrorism is the weapon of the very weak, the armament of those who unable to either motivate or mobilize masses of people. Under those circumstances it is difficult to kindle the kind of conflict that requires the deployment of equally-matched troop formations and the use of conventional tactics. Having asserted that as a general truth, however, it is important to note that the Lebanese Civil War stemmed--in large part--from attacks by terrorist factions on the government and each other. The Lebanese case is an interesting anomaly, a near-perfect example of anarchy.

Revolution

Revolution, true revolution, is somewhat similar to Civil War in the fact that large masses of people are involved and heavy casualties can be expected. While nearly every insurgency is called a revolution by someone, real Revolutions are rare. People simply misapply the term.

Revolutions occur in both the countryside and built-up areas, though they are now mainly identified with urban violence. When used in its narrowest--and truest--sense, a revolution is a popular, nearly- spontaneous uprising by significant minorities or a majority of the population. It normally has social, political, religious, philosophical and moral aspects; it pits those who are wealthy, aristocratic, or powerful against those who see themselves as underprivileged.

Unlike civil wars, which traditionally pit brother against brother, revolutions pit servant against master. While there is evidence of leadership in the events of a Civil War, there is no evidence that any revolution has actually been planned and led-- despite repeated efforts of groups to develop a revolutionary cadre. In the Soviet Union, for instance, the popular uprising was a true Revolution. Lenin was half a continent away in Switzerland at the time of the Revolution. Lenin and the Marxists came to power in a Coup phase that followed the establishment of a revolutionary government. Revolutionary leaders are people who happen to be at the front of the crowd; they are poor prospects for life insurance salesmen because of the notorious fickleness of the revolutionary public.

Revolutions demonstrate, simultaneously in many cases, the irrational cruelty of the mob while showcasing the highest ideals and aspirations of the majority. In a revolution the power base of the old society is destroyed, obliterated, and a new power structure evolves.

Coup

The Coup differs from Revolution in that the power base of the country is not destroyed, and generally is not even damaged. Power in the society is simply transferred from one group in the power structure to another group in the same structure. While revolutions often set out to destroy the "instruments of coercion"--the military and police--the coup generally exploits the loyalties of these groups and the existing "civil service." Those who seize state institutions in a coup do so to use them, not destroy them.

In a coup, mass actions are minimal. Such things as riots tend to destroy the sense of governmental authority, the very concept that both coup victims and plotters want to keep intact. Both sides recognize that mass actions can, all too often, lead to the street violence of Revolution. If those involved in the power structure prefer not to have the public too involved, it is also true that the public generally wants to remain uninvolved.

Coups generally occur where there is a history of political apathy. Whether the people are politically inert because of repression, corruption or simple inefficiency of the political system seems to make little difference.

While Coups are most-often engineered in secret by conspirators, it sometimes happens that the public and the government are well aware of the coup preparations but can--or will--do nothing to prevent them. Rumors or tales of an impending coup may circulate days and weeks prior to the actual event. A coup-prone government will neither be able to quell the rumors nor be in a position to take action against those rumored to be the plotters. The government's inability to put up even a minimal defense at the moment of truth should come as no surprise in such cases.

Researchers have identified three distinct phases of a coup.

In the first phase the loyalty of the civil servants, military and police infrastructure passes from the group holding power (by virtue of their position) to another group or individual elsewhere in the power structure.

In the second phase those who have the real power, but not the titles or the perquisites that go with the power, enforce their claims to the position. They depose the targets of the coup.

In the third phase the new government legitimizes itself with the public by bringing in people who were previously outsiders, or bringing back into government service people who were associated with some previous government which was generally viewed as legitimate. This is a phase of consolidation of power and position.

Coups fall into one of two general types.

In the Palace Revolution a small group of conspirators very close to the real power center removes one of their associates by arrest, banishment or execution.

So called Representative Coups are often staged by the army or police forces, or other civil authorities, generally with the announced purpose of preventing civil strife. When popular dissatisfaction with a regime runs high, the military and others may decide a "fresh start" is needed. Despite the name applied to this type of Coup, the new government may be neither popular or representative.

Coups can be staged by conspirators who are already in the power structure; they can also be plotted by people who are outside the power system but infiltrate key posts in the political system. In either case, the Coup differs from all of the other five types of insurgency in that those who stage such a rebellion operate as part of the social system, not against it. They are, it could be said, conservative rebels.

Copyright c 1997
Mark Monday and Gary Stubblefield;
Scottsdale, AZ
Hamilton, MT