Old and New Insurgency Forms E-Book

Robert Bunker

• Herausgeber: Perennial Press
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 112

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018

Beschreibung

While the study of insurgency extends well over 100 years and has its origins in the guerrilla and small wars of the 19th century and beyond, almost no cross modal analysis - that is, dedicated insurgency form typology identification - has been conducted. Until the end of the Cold War, the study of insurgency focused primarily on separatist and Marxist derived forms with an emphasis on counterinsurgency practice aimed at those forms rather than on identifying what differences and interrelationships existed. The reason for this is that the decades-long Cold War struggle subsumed many diverse national struggles and tensions into a larger paradigm of conflict - a free, democratic, and capitalist West versus a totalitarian, communist, and centrally planned East.

Leseprobe

OLD AND NEW INSURGENCY FORMS

Robert Bunker

PERENNIAL PRESS

Thank you for reading. In the event that you appreciate this book, please consider sharing the good word(s) by leaving a review, or connect with the author.

This book is a work of nonfiction and is intended to be factually accurate.

All rights reserved. Aside from brief quotations for media coverage and reviews, no part of this book may be reproduced or distributed in any form without the author’s permission. Thank you for supporting authors and a diverse, creative culture by purchasing this book and complying with copyright laws.

Copyright © 2016 by Robert Bunker

Interior design by Pronoun

Distribution by Pronoun

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

OLD AND NEW INSURGENCY FORMS

DEFINING INSURGENCY

TERRORISM AS INSURGENCY I&W

REVIEW OF INSURGENCY TYPOLOGIES

PROPOSED INSURGENCY TYPOLOGY

LEGACY INSURGENCY FORMS

CONTEMPORARY INSURGENCY FORMS

EMERGENT AND POTENTIAL INSURGENCY FORMS

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. DEFENSE POLICY

APPENDIX

ENDNOTES

SUMMARY

WHILETHESTUDYOFinsurgencyextendswellover100yearsandhasitsoriginsintheguerrillaandsmallwarsofthe19thcenturyandbeyond,almostnocrossmodalanalysis—thatis,dedicatedinsurgencyformtypologyidentification—hasbeen conducted. UntiltheendoftheColdWar,thestudyofinsurgencyfocusedprimarilyonseparatistandMarxistderivedformswithanemphasisoncounterinsurgencypracticeaimedatthoseformsratherthanonidentifyingwhatdifferencesandinterrelationshipsexisted.Thereasonforthisisthatthedecades-longColdWarstrugglesubsumedmanydiversenationalstrugglesandtensionsintoalargerparadigmofconflict—afree,democratic,andcapitalistWestversusatotalitarian,communist,andcentrallyplannedEast.

WiththeendoftheColdWarandtheresultingideologicalandeconomicimplosionoftheSovietUnion,post-ColdWarinsurgencytypologiesbegantoemergebecauseaneedexistedtounderstandwherethiscomponentofthenewglobalsecurityenvironmentwasheading.Over2decadesofresearchandwritinghavebeenfocusedonthisendeavorbywhatisarelativelysmallnumberofinsurgencypractitionersand/ortheorists.Inaddition,theworksofsomecontemporaryterrorismscholarsarealsorelevanttothistopical area of focus.

Forthismonographtoidentifywhatcanbeconsidered newformsofinsurgencythatare developing,anappreciationforandunderstandingofearlierinsurgencyformsmustalsobearticulated.Withthesethoughtsinmind,thismonographwillinitiallydiscusswhataninsurgencyisandsomeWesternviewpointsonit,describehowterrorismanalysiscanpotentially serveanindicationsandwarnings(I&W)function,providealiteraturereviewofthepost-ColdWarinsurgencytypologiesthatexist,createaproposedinsurgencytypologydividedintolegacy,contemporary, andemergentandpotentialinsurgencyforms,andfinallyprovidestrategicimplicationsforU.S.defensepolicyastheyrelatetoeachoftheseforms.Theworkwillalsoutilizeanumberoftablesfororganizationalpurposesandanendnotessectionforscholarlycitationrequirements.

Pertainingtotheinsurgencyandterrorismliteraturereviewsconductedinthismanuscript,thefollowingterrorismandinsurgencyforms—formname(s),author(s),andyearofpublication—wereanalyzedincreating thefinalforms typology.

TERRORISM FORMS.

• Anarchist,anti-colonial,new-left,religiousextremism(Rapoport,2001)

• Utopianvision (Kaplan, 2007)

• Ethnic,religious,ideological(SchnabelandGunaratna,2006,2015)

INSURGENCY FORMS.

• Commercialandspiritual(Metz,1993)

• People’swar,Cuban-stylefocquismo,urbaninsurrection(Metz,1993)

• Defensive(Cable,1993inMetz,1995)

• Reactionary,subversive(camouflaged)(Metz,

1995)

• Liberation,separatist,reform,warlord(Clapham,1998)

• Apolitical(Sloan,1999)

• Economic(Thom,1999)

• Resource-based(Cilliers,2000)

• Revolutionary warfare,wars ofnational liberation,urban,superpower(Beckett,2001)

• Globalized Islamist(Kilcullen,2004)

• National,liberation(MetzandMillen,2004)

• Anarchist,egalitarian,traditionalist(reactionary-traditionalist), apocalyptic-utopian, secessionist,reformist,preservationist,commercial(Metz,1993; O’Neill, 2005)

• Virtual(Thomas,2006)

• Virtual(Hammes,2007inMetz,2007)

• Criminal(Sullivan,2008)

• Violentnewreligiousmovements(Lauder,2009)

• Urban(SullivanandElkus,2009)

• Resourcecontrol(Tarr,2011)

• Revolution,separatism,resistance(Jones,2011)

• Virtual(Sloan,2011)

• Plutocratic(Bunker,2011)

• Proto-state,nonpolitical,statedestruction(Metz,2012)

• Urban(Kilcullen,2013)

• Chinesestate(JonesandJohnson,2013)

• Singularity(Rectenwald,2013)

• RadicalChristian(Metz,2015)

Derivedfromthisanalysis,thefollowinginsurgencyformswiththeirstartingdatesin()havebeenidentifiedaswellasthestrategicimplicationsofeachformforU.S.defensepolicy.

LEGACY INSURGENCY FORMS.

Anarchist(1880s).Generallyviolent,anarchismhasonlybeenviewedasaformofterrorism(Rapoport,2001)becausetheendstatesoughtisgovernmental— evenstate—destruction.Noreplacementgovernmentorseizureofthestateisbeingattemptednorisanyformofsubversionorco-optionofstateinstitutionsortheparallelbuildingofashadowstatetakingplace.Still,O’Neill(2005)designatesthisasaninsurgencyformandtheinsurgencyoutcomeofstate-destructionexistsin alater typology createdby Metz(2012).

Strategicimplications:None.Thislegacyinsurgencyformisananachronismwiththethreatpotentialsdowngradedtothatofsporadicperiodsoflocalunrestbeinggeneratedbyprotestersoutsideofpoliticalconventionsandfinancialsummitsandcharacterizedbyvandalism,aggravatedassault,andarson.ThisissolelyaU.S.domesticlawenforcementissuefocusingonriotcontrol,investigationofcriminalactivities,andlimitedcounterterrorismresponse.NoU.S.militaryresponseisrequired.

Separatist—InternalandExternal (1920s).Thisinsurgencyformencompassesbothseparationfromlocalauthority—suchastheoriginalIrishRepublicanArmy(IRA)gainingIrishindependencefromtheUnitedKingdomin1921—andtheseparationfromforeignauthorityastookplaceinnumerousregionsduringthedecolonialperiodaftertheSecondWorldWar.Numeroustheoristshaveidentifiedthisinsurgencyform,rangingfromCable’s(1993)defensivearticulationthroughanumberofothersintoJones’s(2011)separatistandresistancetypes.

Strategicimplications:Limited.ThisinsurgencyformnowtakesplaceonlysporadicallyandtosomeextenthasbeenreplacedbymoretraditionalsecessionballotinitiativesashaveormaybeseeninthefutureastakingplaceinScotland,Catalonia,Flanders,andotherlocales.Still,theinsurgenciesofthe1990sthattookplaceintheformerYugoslaviaandthemore recentsecessionofSouthSudanin2011suggestthislegacyformhasnotfadedaway.ApossibleU.S.military responsemay berequireddepending onthespecificinternational incident taking place.

MaoistPeople’s(1930s).ThemostidentifiableinsurgencyformisderivedfromMaoZedong’sprinciplesfoundinhis1937work,OnGuerrillaWarfare.Thisform,alsoknownas“people’swar,”utilizespeasantarmiesthataredrawnuponforanintegratedandprotractedpolitico-militaryphasestrategyofeventualstatetakeover.Ashadoworproto-stateiscreatedinparalleltothepre-existingonebeingtargetedforelimination.ThisformhasbeenidentifiedbyMetz(1993)aspeople’swar,byBeckett(2001)asrevolutionarywarfare,byO’Neill(2005)asegalitarian,andSchnabelandGunaratna(2006;2015)asideological.

Strategicimplications:None.Thislegacyinsurgencyformisdefunct.NoU.S.militaryresponseisrequired.

UrbanLeft(Late-1960s).Thisinsurgencyformhasbeenidentifiedbyanumberoftheoristsand,aspreviouslymentioned,isacontinuationofearlierMarxistpolitico-militaryconceptswithamoreurbanizedemphasis.Peasantsnolongerfightinthecountrysideorsurroundcities—theirsuccessorsnowengageinterroristtacticalactionswithinthosecities.Metz’s(1993)urbaninsurrection—devoidtheIranianexperience,Beckett’s(2001)urbanandsuperpowerbasedSovietproxycomponent,Rapoport’s(2001)new-left,andSchnabelandGunaratna’s(2006;2015)ideological(whichspanstheearlierMarxistformandthisone)alladdressthisform.

Strategicimplications:Nonetolimited.Thislegacyinsurgencyformappearstobedefunct,therefore,no U.S.militaryresponseisrequired.However,thepromotionofsuchpotentialsbytheBolivarianallianceexistsandcouldbefacilitatedbyRussian,IranianandHezbollah,and/orChinesesupport.Still,ifthisinsurgencyformshouldreappear,theimpactisestimatedtobelimited.ItwouldrequirevaryingU.S.Governmentagencyinvolvementbasedonasituationalresponse.

CONTEMPORARY INSURGENCY FORMS.

RadicalIslamist(1979).TheIslamicRevolutioninIranin1979andtheensuing444-dayU.S.Embassyhostagecrisisusheredinanewinsurgencyformderivedfromtheperceptionthatmosqueandstateareinexorablyintertwined.TheradicalIslamistformhastwovariants—oneShiaandtheotherSunnibased—andstemsfromthefactthatIslamneverunderwentahistoricalreformationwhichusheredinsecularpoliticalthoughtandaseparationofthespheresofchurch(ormosque)andstate.ScholarsrecognizingthisinsurgencyformareMetz(1995)reactionary,Rapoport(2001)religiousextremism,Kilcullen(2004)globalizedIslamist,O’Neill(2005)reactionary-traditionalist,andSchnabelandGunaratna (2006;2015) religious.

Strategicimplications:Significant.GroupsinvolvedincludeHezbollah,al-Qaeda,andtheIslamicState.Ofallthepresentlyactiveinsurgencyforms,thisonehasthemostsignificantimpactonU.S.defensepolicyaswitnessedbytheyearsofdeploymentstoAfghanistanandIraqandtheongoingoperationsinSyria,Yemen,andnumerousotherlocales.Thisinsurgencyformrequireseitherfederallawenforcementorthemilitary(typically)asthedesignatedlead.Anallof-governmentapproachisrequiredtomitigateanddefeatthisinsurgencyformwhichpossessesaterrorismcomponent—utilizingbothlargescaleandlone wolfattacks—representingadirectthreattotheU.S.homeland.

LiberalDemocratic(1989).TheremovaloftheBerlinWallinNovember1989,theendofCommunistruleinEasternEuropethereafter,andtheeventualdissolutionoftheSovietUnioninDecember1991markednotonlytheendtotheColdWarbutalsothepowerofpluralistuprisingsasthePolishSolidarityshipyardworkershaveshown.ThatliberaldemocracycouldprovidethebasisforaninsurgencyformhasbeennotedbybothBeckett(2001),astheAmericancomponentoftheColdWarsuperpowerbasedconflict,andalsolaterbyO’Neill(2005),morespecificallywithinhispluralistformdesignation.

Strategicimplications:Mixed(beneficial).ThisinsurgencyformshouldbeviewedasanopportunitytoextenddemocraticvaluesratherthanasanactualorpotentialthreatofsomesorttotheUnitedStatesoritsallies.AvarietyofU.S.Governmentagenciesmayprovideindirectand/ordirectfacilitationofsuchinsurgencies.Theonedownsideofthisinsurgencyformisunintendedsecondandthirdordereffects—forexample,U.S.supporttothe mostlydefunctFree SyrianArmy(FSA)inadvertentlystrengthenedtheIslamicState (IS)byhelping toweakentheAssad regime.

Criminal(Early-2000s).Elementsandcomponentsofthisinsurgencyformhavebeenprojectedandidentifiedbynumerousscholars:Metz’s(1993)commercial,Clapham’s(1998)warlord,Sloan’s(1999)apolitical, Thom’s(1999)economic,Cilliers’s(2000)resourcebased,Tarr’s (2011)resourcecontrol, andMetz’s later(2012)non-political.Ofthesevariousarticulations,Sullivan’s (2008) criminal designation—directly derivedfromMetz’s1993perceptions—has becomethedominantoneasitrelatestotheinsurgent-like activitiesofthegangsand cartelsinMexicoand LatinAmerica.

Strategicimplications:Limitedtomoderate.Typically,thegroupsinvolvedinthisinsurgencyform—ColombianandMexicancartels,CentralAmericangangs,andtheItalianmafia—areviewedasalawenforcementconcern.However,someoftheAfricanwarlordsandthemoreoperationallycapablecartelgroups,suchasLosZetasandCJNG(CárteldeJaliscoNuevaGeneración),haveovermatchcapabilitytoanylawenforcementresponse.FortheUnitedStates,theresponsetothisinsurgencyformrequireseitherfederallawenforcement(typically)orthemilitaryasthedesignatedlead.Anall-of-governmentapproachisrequiredtomitigateanddefeatthisinsurgencyformthatspringsoutofMexicoandisbringingcorruptionintoU.S.borderzonesalongwithsporadicincidentsofnarco-terrorism.

Plutocratic(2008).Ofalloftheinsurgencyformsofferedinthismonograph,thismaybeoneofthemostcontentious.Itspecificallyviewstheriseofglobalizedcapitaldevoidofanytiestothestate—inessence,representativeofanemergingformof21stcenturypostmoderncapitalism—indirectconflictwithearlierformsof20thcenturystatemoderatedcapitalismpromotedbyliberaldemocraticgovernments.Itviewstheriseofstatelessmultinationalcorporations,andtheglobalelites(.001%to1%)theyserveasthemajorstakeholders,asinsiderinsurgentthreatstotheinternationalorder.ThisinsurgentformservesasacorollarytotheprecedingcriminalformandrepresentsanothervarianttoMetz’s(1993) commercialarticulationpostulatedbyBunker(2011).

Strategicimplications:Nonepresently.TheU.S.military hasnocurrentroleintheresponsetotheriseofpredatoryglobalcapitalismandtheemerging“sovereignfree”entitiesengaginginit.Rather,varyinggovernmentalagencieswithalegalisticandeconomicmandatewillberequiredtopromotestatemoderatedcapitalistvaluesandlaws.Federallawenforcementagencieswillbetaskedtosupportsucheffortsastheyrelatetofinancialcrimes,taxavoidance,andrelatedoffenses.

EMERGENT AND POTENTIAL INSURGENCY FORMS.

BloodCultist(Emergent).Theexistenceofthistypeofinsurgencyformhasbeenrecognizedbyanumberofscholars(O’Neill,2005;Kaplan,2007;Lauder,2009)primarilywithinthelastdecadeandultimatelyrepresents a fusionof criminality,spirituality,andbarbarism.ItismostrecognizablewithrecentIslamicStateactivityinvolvingmassritualbeheadings,crucifixions,childrape,andrelatedatrocitiesandtheir“endofdays”typeofpursuits.AttributesofthisinsurgencyformcanalsobefoundwiththeLaFamiliaMichoacana(LFM)andLosCaballerosTemplarios(TheKnight’sTemplars)cartelsinMexicowhichengageinChristiancultishbehaviorsandelementsofLosZetasandCarteldelGolfothatareinvolvedinextremeformsofSantaMuerteworshipwhichseeksupernaturalprotection,deathmagicspells,power,andriches.

Strategicimplications:Limitedtomoderate.ThisinsurgencyformcanbeviewedasamutationofeitherradicalIslamand/orrampantcriminality,asfoundinpartsofLatinAmericaandAfrica,intodarkspiritualitybasedon