Is the US military a global insurgency?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by desi, Sep 18, 2012.

  1. RoccoR Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    quadraphonics, et al,

    To a degree, I have to agree with quadraphonics' point that the question pertains to the military and its operational direction. However, the Armed Forces of the United States is an "action arm" of policy. It doesn't, per sa, set the policy - but it does reflect policy through its actions. While the original question may not be phrased properly, I believe the intent of the question was to focus on this aspect.

    (COMMENT)

    If one looks at the general joint doctrine, they will see that an insurgency is defined rather charismatically:

    It further goes on to say that:

    Now the cited EO (12333), has been amended several times up to and through EO 13470. You can read that version at this reference: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12333-2008.pdf

    The other instruments of power, include the Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF). The US has a demonstrated policy of Regime Change, on a case by case basis. It can be an open policy, established in US Law as done in Iraq [Public Law 105-338 (the "Iraq Liberation Act") ]; or it can be covert or (even more rare) clandestine IAW EO 12333 [As amended by Executive Orders 13284 (2003), 13355 (2004) and 13470 (2008)].

    In either case, IF the intent of the original question was to ask IF the US Armed Forces has been used to conducts operations in support of US Foreign Policy pertaining to induced insurgencies, insurrections, and Regime Change, (AKA: Special Activities when covert or clandestine) then the answer would be an - unequivocal "YES."

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    To me, the phrase "global insurgency" implies an effort to overturn and revise the world order, and not just "did the USA assist some insurgency or another in some specific countries." And, again, the US is a status quo power, since it already dominates the world order.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. RoccoR Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    quadraphonics, et al,

    References:

    • Countering Global Insurgency - Small Wars Journal
      smallwarsjournal.com/documents/kilcullen.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
      Nov 30, 2004 – The paper argues that the War is best understood as a global insurgency, initiated by a diffuse grouping of Islamist movements that seek to ...
      .
      [*]War on Terror Becomes Global Islamic Insurgency
      terrorism.about.com › ... › U.S. Policy & War on TerrorShareThe Global War on Terror, the governing theory of terrorism and foreign policy lens of the Bush era, has evolved into the concept of a global Islamic insurgency.
      .
      [*]against Global insurgency - National Defense University
      www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-56/22.pdfFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
      ndupress.ndu.edu issue 56, 1st quarter 2010 / JFQ. 135. POINT/COUNTERPOINT the. Struggle against Global insurgency. By daniel G. cox. Dr. Daniel G. Cox is ...


    Yes, the implication of the word "Global" --- what does it mean.

    (COMMENT)

    Depending on which adversarial side you are on, determines whether or not you are viewed as an insurgent or the counter-insurgent.

    But to determine if the US Armed Forces views it as a "global insurgency" is a matter of their interpretation and the magnitude of the engagement.

    Similarly, it can be said, that if the opposing forces interpret the engagement as a "global effort," and work to that end, then it becomes a "global effort."

    Whichever element the US Armed Forces engages, where ever the engagement occurs, it is part of a global effort under the policy set forth by the US Leadership.

    (SIDEBAR)

    The phrase, "A New World Order," is actually a sound bite behind a "conspiracy theory." It suggest a struggle by the "Ruling Elite" to secretly gain power and influence over the world. It is often applied to initiatives by the US and associated to the political-military hegemonies established through force projection. While there are some similarities between the US Hegemony and the idea of a New World Order, the US does not have the prerequisite authoritarian government to establish any stability in the regard.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    No, those terms are not so relative. The insurgent is the one looking to overthrow the establish order. The counter-insurgent is the one looking to preserve it. These definitions do not depend on which "side" one is on - both sides typically agree about which one is the insurgency and which one is the established order.
     
  8. RoccoR Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    quadraphonics, et al,

    Simplistic. --- No argument for now.

    (COMMENT)

    As it makes little difference to the outcome of my point, I will not challenge this.

    That would mean, that any "Regime Change" the US embarks upon is an insurgency.

    That would make, for example, the Taliban the Government in Exile, overthrown by the American lead insurgency. The Taliban would be the freedom fighters, attempting to reinstall the recognized government in power prior to the US invasion.

    While a bit too simplistic for me, it doesn't change the modern asymmetric outcome. It would change who the invaders are, who the terrorist are, and who is the liberation force attempting to reestablish the order.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    It's not "simplistic," it's just plain simple. You're tieing yourself in knots redefining this rather straightforward term, and I can't really see why.

    The standard definition of "insurgency" excludes cases where the party overthrowing a regime is itself a sovereign state, or even just a "recognized belligerent" (the CSA in the US Civil War was not an "insurgency" for that reason). Warfare between states is not "insurgency."

    The Taliban was never recognized by much of anyone as the duly consituted authority governing Afghanistan.

    I'd be okay with referring to the Northern Alliance that resisted them prior to that as an "insurgency," though. But another sovereign state cruising in with an official military to take on the Taliban is not an "insurgency."

    If you are going to eschew the straightforward, consistent meanings of those terms, then of course you are going to end up with malleable, relativistic categories. Likewise with the a priori insistence that all those categories you name there are valid and correspond uniquely to one party or another.

    I think that if you stick to straightforward definitions and use some common sense, you won't run into all this confusion.
     
  10. RoccoR Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    144
    quadraphonics, et al,

    You may be right.

    An Insurgency is an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government
    through use of subversion and armed conflict. JP 1-02

    Subversion is an activity designed to undermine the military, economic, psychological, or
    political strength or morale of a regime or nation. All elements of the resistance organization
    contribute to the subversive effort, but the clandestine nature of subversion dictates that the
    underground elements perform the bulk of the activity. JP 1-02​

    Straight forward. We can argue the meaning of a "constituted government;" but I will stipulate that not all governments have the same means of establishment.

    (COMMENT)

    Using the JCS Definitions, DID the US ever use armed conflict and/or subversion (overt, covert or clandestine) to overthrow a government?

    • Syria 1949
    • Iran 1953
    • Guatemala 1954
    • Tibet 1955-70s
    • Indonesia 1958
    • Cuba 1959
    • Democratic Republic of the Congo 1960-65
    • Iraq 1960-63
    • Dominican Republic 1961
    • South Vietnam 1963
    • Brazil 1964
    • Ghana 1966
    • Chile 1970-73
    • Argentina 1976
    • Afghanistan 1979-1989
    • Turkey 1980
    • Poland 1980-81
    • Nicaragua 1981-1990
    • Cambodia 1980-95
    • Angola 1980s
    • Philippines 1986
    • Iraq 1992-1996
    • Afghanistan 2001
    • Iraq 2002-03
    • Venezuela 2002
    • Iran 2005-present

    This list, not all inclusive, is something to consider. The US military involvement varies in each case, and the methodology shifts depending on the approach being used by the lead agency.

    But, in a non-derogatory tone, the US has a huge military hegemony which it uses to enforce its will upon lesser countries that refuse to support activities that are in the US best interest.

    Most Respectfully,
    R
     
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    I do not agree to any definition of "insurgency" that does not include some qualifier about the opposition to the constituted government not being recognized belligerents.

    Your overbroad definition there has reduced "insurgency" down to "any activity that aims at the overthrow of a constituted government." The result is a hash. WWII would be "an insurgency" by that definition.

    A state in a hegemonic geopolitical position that uses its power to boss around those states lower on the pecking order is pretty much the exact opposite of an insurgency. An insurgency is when sub-state groups try to overthrow a government, not when an empire throws its weight around.
     

Share This Page