Insurgency-Civil War
 

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

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

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.

from Webster's New World Collegiate Dictionary...
 

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... :p

Yeah, but what is the difference?

It is a matter of symmetry and scale?

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...

I would think that the cause of Civil War is the seperate political entities, while the effect, or goal, of it is the same as an insurgency: To unify the country under one rule.

Thoughts?
--Aric

the American Civil war fought to create two governments, as it was determined that the differences between North and South were too great to overcome (at least one could argue that point as the Southern motivation)...the civil wars in the Balkans were essentially to gain autonomy for one region or another...the Spanish Civil War, by contrast, was fought to establish a new form of government, replacing the old with the new...the English Civil War was fought for several reasons, among them was to dispel the notion of the divine rights of kings, and to protect Protestantism within England...the initial aim was not the replacement of the monarchy, but a moderation of the perceived abuses of the Crown...

I forgot about the Civil War from the South's Point of view (unfortunately all too easy these days)...

But your examples of the Spanish Civil War and the English Civil War both seek to create a single government don't they? (Whether moderate monarchy or brand new...)

I still stand by my definition of an insurgency as a group of fighters and a Civil War as a type of conflict, Webster's be damned. :p

--Aric

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...? :p

do you expect a straight-forward, clear-cut answer? i don't...

Not at all...

I just got the impression from your previous posts that the end result of a (successful) Civil War had to be two seperate political entities. :)

--Aric

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.

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.

The differences are a function of how you choose to define the terms, which can have somewhat elastic meanings. But fundamentally they differ because they have to do with two separate things.

An "insurgency" refers to the nature or form of the conflict. Though some doctrinal publications muddy the waters by defining insurgency by an end - the overthrow of a government - fundamentally, the end does not matter. Whether a group seeks to overthrow an established government, break away from the central government, force the government to make accomodations, make a profit, or just kill people isn't really relevant. An insurgency is defined by the means employed - primarily guerrilla but also perhaps involving political agitation, terrorism and/or some conventional military operations - and its scale - somewhere on the middle of the spectrum between full-blown conventional warfare and gang or terrorist violence.

A "civil war" refers to the purpose of the conflict. A "civil war" is contrasted with a war between or among separate states. It is simply a war within a state. The tactics/methods are not the issue - as Axl Rose once asked, "what's so civil about war anyway?"

Civil wars fall into various categories, but each is defined by the end sought, not the methods chosen to achieve them (though, of course, the essence of strategy is adapting the means employed to the ends sought). The most recognizable category is the revolutionary, the attempt to overthrow and replace the existing government - the Spanish Civil War is a classic example. The other major category is a separatist war, an attempt by a region to break away from the central government, of which the U.S. Civil War is the classic example. A third category might be sectarian, a war within a state among ethnic or religious factions, but this category is somewhat ephemeral, as the goals are often unclear and sometimes these do have revolutionary or separatist overtones. The English Civil War is generally classified as of the sectarian variety.

There is of course overlap among these categories. Was the American Revolution a civil war among British loyalists and those who would establish their own form of government, or a separatist war between breakaway colonies and their mother country?

The scale is also a factor in defining civil wars versus domestic violence. A war gets called a civil war when it reaches a level of violence that makes the overthrow of the regime or the breakaway of a region conceivable. This is a bit of a logical fallacy - begging the question - since it boils down to "we call it a civil war when it is big enough to be called a civil war." This is where means and ends get muddied and questions are asked such as whether an insurgency is now a full-scale civil war. And some authors trying to define "civil war" do fall into this, basically seeing a civil war as categorized by full-scale conventional warfare, as opposed to "just" insurgent violence or an even lower level of violence.

This is where the "is the situation in Iraq becoming a civil war" question muddies the categories and begs the question. The insurgency doesn't become a civil war merely by becoming more violent or deadly. It does by reaching a point where there are clear sides with definable and achievable ends (I admit "achievable" does involve question-begging, but I think we recognize that it is a factor - anarchists may have definable ends, but are never likely to be seen as a side in a civil war because they are too small and radical to ever conceive of actually accomplishing those ends or getting a sufficient number of their countrymen to join the cause).

In Iraq, for example, it is hard to conceive of the predominantly Sunni insurgents ever leading a successful revolutionary civil war. They are simply outnumbered by Shi'ite Arabs, Kurds and non-insurgent Sunnis to ever achieve that end. The Ba'athists may be nostalgic for the power they once had, and that nostalgia may fuel their ardor, but the relative power positions have changed too radically - the Ba'athist Sunni-dominated Iraqi security forces have been destroyed and the Shi'ites and Kurds have enough power that they won't go back to the status quo ante 2003.

And though the Sunnis are a relatively distinct subgroup in Iraq. there appears to be no viable separatist sentiment. The Sunni insurgents are not seeking to break the so-called Sunni Triangle away from the central government.

The non-Ba'athist insurgents, the Islamist terrorists of Al-Qa'ida in Iraq and similar groups, might arguably have a revolutionary goal, the establishment of an Islamic regime, but like the anarchists this is not an especially achievable goal, since not only would it require cowing the more secular elements in Iraqi society, but also the entire Shi'ite majority, since AQ's brand of Islamism is extremely hostile to Shi'ism.

Rather, their goals seem to be like those of anarchists, simply to foment violence for violence's sake in the hope that outsiders like the US will just give up and abandon the country to anarchy. The Ba'athists still hold out some hope that the Iraqi people will look for a Ba'athist Napoleon to save them from this anarchy, while it is hard to see the Islamists as having any real objective other than perpetuating the anarchy - they are a death cult that kills for the sake of killing. But while they certainly can perpetuate the violence, the ends do not seem achievable. The Shi'ites and their allies are far more likely to exterminate the Ba'athists (and as many innocent Sunni Arabs as get caught in the line of fire) than simply give the Ba'athists the keys to Saddam's mansions and prisons back.

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

I would say that loss of your lands and property, as well as suspension of your rights is pretty significant mistreatment by the government that wanted to keep you.

Slaves were also held in the states NOT in rebellion and only the slaves living in the Confederacy were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, in case you didn't know that. The majority of Southerners were NOT slaveowners.

TR

Let's see how this works -------- Defend the Confederacy and you're a racist. Suggest the Palestinian people got screwed by everybody (and dare to suggest that the bombing of the King David Hotel was an act of terrorism) and you're anti-Semitic. I love the power of association invoked with words. Just because the causes are unpopular or the victims aren't admirable, doesn't mean their grievances aren't legitimate. Peregrino

Hell, I just found out that the Confederate Air Force changed its name to be more PC.

Now I AM pissed! :mad:

TR

Yes, I knew. But I believe in identifying and striking the most sensitive and vulnerable targets. LMAO

The South got its ass kicked, IIRC. :D

I don't recall that from my history lessons.

Would you care to cite examples where with comparably sized elements, the Confederate forces lost?

I can provide numerous cases of more numerous and better equipped Federal foces failing miserably.

The Yankees probably had more lawyers in their ranks. There were several particularly incompetent ones in command at various levels. I'll have to see if any share your last name. :munchin

TR

I did not realize that Bragg was located in the good ol C S of A.

You are aware of what John Singleton Mosby did before the war, right? :munchin

Yeah, but he was a Confederate and never rose above the rank of Colonel. I dedicated a chapter to one of his operations in my thesis, but out of respect, avoided his unsavory pre-war activies.

Are you familiar with Daniel Sickles?

TR

Body blow! You da man, AL! LOL

AL is adopting the AM targeting strategy -- first shot through the temple! :D

Braxton Bragg was a Confederate general, though arguably one of the worst.

Fort Bragg did not exist during the War. It was founded as an artillery training base in 1918.

North Carolina is in the South, and was among the last to secede, after holding out for a compromise. It contributed the most troops to that War, and suffered over 25% of all casualties, despite having one of the lowest slave populations. I would not ascribe to the theory that the War was all about slavery, or impugn ill-motives to those who served or have studied it.

RL, do you believe that the Federal government should have usurped the states rights' that it has in the past 140 years?

TR