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...

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.

Thats it. Totally 4 sure.

I would put forward that another indicator might also be clearly defined ideals which dont change with tactics (eg. coersion of population). To me, the "achievable" criteria is not strict enough. It is disguised as a subjective parameter. Or do historians (in retrospect) determine which conflicts are civil wars and which are merely violence and domestic uprising?

You can have clear sides with definable and achievable ends at any point in a conflict, if you are an insurgent and you are putting up an illusion to win popular support. In practice, um, how about peasant revolts around a pretender. Or, the Chinese communists (first they were marxists, then nationalists, then they were socalists, then they were "unified" in the face of Japanese agression, dropped land reform, then they performed land reform by violent means thereby committing the rural population to violence, allowing the dropping of land reform in favor of collectivization)

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.

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

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.

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

The North considered it an armed rebellion.

The South considered it a legitimate military response to invasion by the Union, as they felt their secession, like the original confederation, was permitted by the Constitution.

Probably be fought for an even longer period by lawyers in $1000 suits today.

TR

What is the difference between an insurgency and an "armed rebellion"? The latter is a subset of the first, isn't it?

Not relevant to me in this case, since I disagree with the premise. :D

On a theoretical discussion, since JCS Pub 1-02 defines insurgency as :

"insurgency — (*) An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict."

The Confederacy attempted a seccession, initially peacefully. The Union denied that. Prior to the War, it could be argued that states freely joining the Union, could decide to freely leave the Union. There was no effort to overthrow the Federal government. Thus, I would submit that there was no effort to overthrow the government, just to declare independence and secede from it.

TR

The American Civil War (War of Northern Aggression, War of Southern Secession, whatever) was not an insurgency, nor was it technically "armed rebellion" as the Constitution was then written. Yankee propaganda, used to whip up the fervor of a reluctant population has been incorporated into the popular misconceptions of the War and its background. Unfortunately (at least in this case) history is written by the winners. And - given the ancillary issues - there is little chance for a dispassionate, objective examination of the facts. Attempts to do so are usually met with the same calibre of vitriol as attempts to look fairly at both sides of the Mid-East disaster. In order to qualify for relook the cause must be popular with liberal academicians. The Confederacy will never meet that standard. My .02 - Peregrino

You southern boys crack me up. ;)

Where, in the Constitution, was it written that the union could be maintained by force of arms, then the states who attempted to secede could be then treated as occupied territory and their Constitutional (and inalienable) rights suspended?

I thought the states formed together of their own volition, declared independence with state representation in a Continental Congress, and approved the Constitution with ratification by the respective state houses.

My belief is that the founding fathers would have rolled in their graves at the thought of the federal government invading states and abusing their citizens to preserve the union.

What does your history book say, counsel?

TR

That's the majority of the problem right there. Peregrino

TR, I believe you are correct on the constitutional issues.

Abusing those poor ladies and gentlemen. And destroying their constitutionally recognized right to own slaves. Damn Yankees! LMAO