Contradictions of the Iraqi Resistance: Guerilla War vs. Terrorism (original) (raw)

Guerrila War vs. Terrorism: Contradictions of the Iraqi Resistance

From the beginning of the US occupation until the current civil war in Iraq, the resistance has included both terrorist groups and guerrilla warfare. this article seeks to understand the different origins and consequences of guerrilla warfare and terrorism as strategies for resisting occupation.

Irregular Warfare : Terrorism and Insurgency

2009

Western democracies have had difficulty responding to the new reality of global violent extremist terrorism. Two themes run through the long history of irregular warfare. The first is that all types of irregular warfare, including terrorism and insurgency, are appealing to those who seek to change the status quo, but what role can politics possibly play for those who are willing to kill themselves and others for rewards in the afterlife? For reasons that will become clear in this chapter, global violent extremists share much in common with their historical antecedents. The second theme is that conducting irregular warfare successfully to achieve change is a very challenging undertaking. Historically the balance sheet favours those who fight against terrorist and insurgent groups. For dissatisfied groups and individuals, however, irregular warfare will be used as it offers the promise of change to right perceived injustices and wrongs. Irregular warfare is often the only practical me...

Terrorism in Insurgency Warfare

Recourse to violence to initiate change is now commonplace in many developing areas. Indeed, the use of violence is frequently the only alternative open to those who would alter existing economic, social, and political institutions. Terrorism is one element in this process of violent change can be defined as the use of physical violence, however indirect, for politico-psychological effect through fear for one's own person. Clarification of the various stages of insurgency warfare is necessary in order to comprehend the function of terror. To be sure, there are no clear-cut delineations between the various stages. But if the development of a revolutionary war is conceived of as a continuum, two different stages may be recognized. This division is between guerrilla and conventional warfare. While the difference is a matter of degree, the distinction can be made on various grounds, including the size and capability of combat units, tactical characteristics, and the geographical sites chosen for confrontation. Thus, the mission of guerrilla warfare is conventional-direct destruction of the enemy. COMPLEMENTARY TACTIC Terrorism, however, is not a distinct stage in revolutionary development, but a complementary tactic to both guerrilla and conventional warfare. The degree of emphasis on terrorism in either stage will depend on its utility for the insurgence, the successful development of the revolution, and upon the environmental conditions within which the insurgent-e must operate. In addition, terrorism differs from guerrilla and conventional operations inasmuch as its purpose is to influence the opponent and any third parties rather than to annihilate him. Unlike military operations, terrorism is concerned with more than the simple physical elimination of a person or object. The purpose of the act, not the nature of the act itself, is the essential characteristic which distinguished terrorism. Neither the scale of the activity nor the number of participants is a distinguishing characteristic. Terrorism as a conscious act can be executed by a regiment, as well as a single assassin or small sapper squad. As a hypothetical example, an insurgent regiment which appears to be engaging a government force for the purpose of occupying a specific piece of territory may, in reality, be attempting to communicate a feeling of insecurity to the civilian population inhabiting the area. In such a situation, the insurgent regiment's mission would be to create terror rather than the conventional mission of physically destroying the enemy and occupying a specific piece of territory. The target, therefore, is often someone other than the victim of a terrorist act. Consequently, the psychological consequences of the act are more important than the act itself.