Insurgency

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Insurgency is a form of armed conflict built on a fundamental imbalance of power. A small, lightly armed band faces a larger, well-equipped military force. Instead of meeting that force head-on, insurgents dissolve into the civilian population, expanding their reach gradually while the formal army struggles to tell a fighter from a neighbor.

  The questions that shape any study of insurgency run deep. Why do people join these movements, knowing the cost? How does a government fight an enemy it cannot always see? And what does it mean to win when the battlefield is the relationship between armed groups and the people caught between them?

  James Fearon and David Laitin describe insurgency as a technology of military conflict, not merely a political act but a method, one built on rural base areas and the cover of civilian proximity. Austin Long adds that the goal is always political: to change an existing order, not just to cause destruction. Matthew Adam Kocher, Thomas Pepinsky, and Stathis Kalyvas place the civilian population at the center of everything, arguing that control over civilians is the central objective of any insurgency. Those three framings point toward the same difficult truth, that the population is not merely the backdrop to this kind of war. The population is the terrain.

• 2. Asymmetry and Avoidance

  ›

  The defining feature of insurgency is its asymmetric nature. Small irregular forces deliberately avoid the large-scale direct battles they cannot win. Instead they blend into rural areas, build territorial control slowly, and rely on the patience their opponents often lack.

  Berman and Matanock describe asymmetric conflict as one where government forces hold a clear advantage in coercive capacity. That advantage is real, but it creates its own trap. Because insurgents can reintegrate into civilian populations after an attack, the government's superior firepower becomes difficult to apply without causing the very harm that drives more people toward the rebellion.

  The NATO operation in Libya in 2011 and the French-led intervention in Mali in 2013 are recent examples of how outside intervention increases this asymmetry. When European forces enter a conflict on the government's side, the gap in military power widens, making asymmetric methods more appealing and more common.

• 3. Terror, Subversion, and Political Purpose

  ›

  Robert R. Tomes, writing in 2004, identified four elements that typically encompass an insurgency: cell networks that maintain secrecy, terrorism used to drive civilians toward the insurgents for protection, efforts to undermine the existing regime, and direct attacks against the government. Yet the French Revolution had no cell system, and the American Revolution made little attempt to terrorize civilians.

  Mao considered terrorism a basic part of the first phase of his three phases of revolutionary warfare. The Marxist theoretician Carlos Marighella specifically recommended acts of terror as a way to open what he called the security gap, forcing the government to overreact in ways that alienate the population.

  Michael F. Morris, whose essay won the 24th Annual United States Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Strategic Essay Contest, drew a sharp line between insurgency and pure terrorism. A purely terrorist group may pursue political goals, Morris argued, but its violence replaces rather than complements a political program. Insurgencies normally field fighting forces orders of magnitude larger than terrorist organizations. They often provide social services and maintain a legal political wing alongside a covert one.

  Subversion runs through nearly every insurgency, even those without terrorist tactics. One definition quoted by Rosenau frames subversion as a generalized intention to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by political, industrial, or violent means. A striking formulation puts it more plainly: when a country is being subverted, it is not being outfought, it is being out-administered. Subversion is literally administration with a minus sign in front. The liberalization of Eastern Europe offers a rare example where subversion alone, without violence, shifted governments, with Solidarity appearing subversive to the Communist government of Poland without resorting to armed action.

• 4. Why People Fight

  ›

  Barbara F. Walter, in her article "Why Bad Governance Leads to Civil Wars", argues that strong institutions prevent insurgencies from escalating into civil wars. Institutions, in Walter's view, serve four functions: they check the government, create peaceful routes to solve problems, commit the government to political terms that preserve peace, and create conditions where potential rebels do not need to form militias.

  Elisabeth Jean Wood, in her book "Insurgent Collective Action and Civil War in Salvador", explored why people take extraordinary risks to join high-cost movements. She points to participants in the 1964 Freedom Summer campaign in the US South, who ran high risks of bodily harm challenging practices of racial exclusion in Mississippi. The costs are real, but so are the incentives.

  Wood identifies several material draws. Insurgents can supply safety as a good, removing citizens from the direct exploitation of an autocratic government. Armed movements can build social and political networks that open access to opportunities unavailable under the existing regime. And civil wars and insurgencies can provide employment and access to services and resources that autocratic regimes had monopolized.

  James D. Fearon offers a rationalist explanation for why wars happen at all, noting that leaders sometimes prefer to gamble on conflict rather than accept peaceful bargains. Intermediate bargains are complicated by the spread of nationalism, which makes it difficult for countries to trade territories. Walter adds that even after a civil war, the resulting government can be accountable to a wider range of people, creating incentives that extend beyond survival into political representation. Autocratic governments, she notes, resist the emergence of strong institutions precisely because those institutions constrain corruption and limit privilege.

• 5. Multipolar Wars and Shifting Alliances

  ›

  Iraq presented a recognized government fighting multiple groups of insurgents simultaneously. The Russian Civil War was similarly multipolar rather than a two-sided contest. These examples push the definition of insurgency well beyond the simpler model of rebel versus state.

  The Angolan Civil War had two main sides, MPLA and UNITA, but at the same time a separatist movement for the independence of the Cabinda region operated under FLEC. The Somali Civil War, particularly during the period from 1998 to 2006, extended the concept further still. There, the absence of any recognized authority produced a situation where the country broke into quasi-autonomous smaller states fighting among one another in shifting alliances.

  The legal status of rebel forces matters for how a conflict is classified. During the American Civil War, the Confederate States of America was not recognized as a sovereign state, but it was recognized as a belligerent power. That recognition meant Confederate warships received the same rights as United States warships in foreign ports, even without sovereign status.

  Steven Metz observes that modern insurgencies are more likely to have a multinational or transnational character than those of the past. Overt state sponsorship has become less common, but sponsorship by transnational groups has grown. Metz also identifies what he calls third forces, armed groups such as militias that affect outcomes without being core insurgents, and fourth forces, unarmed groups such as international media that also shape results. The result is a picture of contemporary insurgency with far more complex and shifting participation than traditional wars, where discrete belligerents pursue a clear strategic victory.

• 6. Frameworks for Counting the Cost

  ›

  David Kilcullen built a framework for counterinsurgency around three pillars: security, political, and economic. He pictures the conflict as an ecosystem defined by geographic, ethnic, economic, social, cultural, and religious characteristics. Inside that ecosystem are governments, counterinsurgent forces, insurgent leaders, insurgent forces, and a general population divided into three groups: those committed to the insurgents, those committed to the counterinsurgents, and those who simply wish to get on with their lives.

  Stuart Eizenstat describes insurgency as growing from gaps in state capacity. The first and most important is the security gap: a government's inability to protect its citizens from internal and external threats. He cites Haiti, Nepal, and Somalia as examples. The second is the capacity gap, covering survival needs from water and food to public health and education. Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo appear in his analysis as places where endemic insecurity cut segments of the population off from their governments. The third is the legitimacy gap, which cannot be closed by elections alone but requires a government perceived to exist by the consent of the governed, with minimal corruption and a functioning judicial system.

  A study by Juan Camilo Bohorquez, Sean Gourley, Alexander R. Dixon, Michael Spagat, and Neil F. Johnson, titled "Common Ecology Quantifies Human Insurgency", found a common statistical structure across nine contemporary insurgent wars, drawing on data from more than 50,000 insurgent attacks. That study identified a recurrent pattern in the distribution of deaths in insurgent and terrorist events, suggesting that insurgencies across very different contexts share underlying mathematical regularities.

  The French general Joseph Gallieni, writing as a colonial administrator in 1898, put the central problem plainly: a country is not conquered and pacified when a military operation has decimated its inhabitants and made all heads bow in terror, because the ferments of revolt will germinate in the mass and the rancors accumulated by the brutal action of force will make them grow again. Cordesman, Kilcullen, and Eizenstat all arrive, through different routes, at the same warning Gallieni issued more than a century ago.