Rethinking Insurgency

Abstract

The September 11, 2001, attacks and Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom revived the idea that insurgency is a significant threat to the United States. In response, the American military and defense communities began to rethink insurgency. Much of this valuable work, though, viewed contemporary insurgency as more closely related to Cold War-era insurgencies than to the complex conflicts that characterized the post-Cold War period. This suggests that the way that the military and defense communities think about insurgency must be rethought. Contemporary insurgency has a different strategic context, structure, and dynamics than its forebears. Insurgencies tend to be nested in complex conflicts that involve what can be called third forces (armed groups that affect the outcome) and fourth forces (unarmed groups that affect the outcome, such as the media), as well as the insurgents and the regime. Because of globalization, the decline of overt state sponsorship of insurgency, the continuing importance of informal outside sponsorship, and the nesting of insurgency within complex conflicts associated with state weakness or failure, the dynamics of contemporary insurgency are more like a violent and competitive market than war in the traditional sense where clear and discrete combatants seek strategic victory. This suggests a very different way of thinking about counterinsurgency. At the strategic level, the risk to the United States is not that insurgents will "win" in the traditional sense. It is that complex internal conflicts, especially ones involving insurgency, will generate other adverse effects: the destabilization of regions, resource flows, and markets; the blossoming of transnational crime; humanitarian disasters; and transnational terrorism. Given this, the U.S. goal should not automatically be the defeat of the insurgents by the regime, but the most rapid conflict resolution possible. Protracted conflict, not insurgent victory, is the threat.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jun 01, 2007
Accession Number
ADA468470

Entities

People

  • Steven Metz

Organizations

  • United States Army War College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Biomedical
  • Energy and Power Technologies
  • Human Systems
  • Space
  • Weapons Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Criminals
  • Doctrine
  • Electronic Mail
  • Employment
  • Failed States
  • Geographic Regions
  • Health Services
  • Military Science
  • National Governments
  • National Security
  • Personnel Management
  • Private Military Companies
  • Societies
  • Terrorism
  • Terrorists
  • War Colleges
  • Warfare

Fields of Study

  • History
  • Sociology

Readers

  • Political Violence and Terrorism Studies.
  • Strategic Security Studies
  • Systems Analysis and Design