These two terms and other labels applied to the seemingly universal unrest have begun to confuse me. Enough so that I started to look up definitions and meanings of Terrorism and Insurgency and other terms like: Rebellion, Revolt, Insurrection, Uprising, Revolution, Mutiny, etc. All are associated or cited as synonyms. This did not help my mixed-up thinking much. It does seem to include most sorts of anti-authority activities.
The prefix counter adds to the meaning. We apply such terms to military strategies. In Afghanistan General Petraeus has used Counterinsurgency. Now I have been reading about Counterterrorism as the new strategy.
But at times such activities are seen as positive, as the Arab Spring implied at the start; at other times they are viewed negatively. It depends, as we say in the case of “beauty is in the eyes of the beholder...” Or the meaning depends on whether or not one is the agent or the recipients of these activities.
Then again, it may also depend on the outcome such activities produce. I can imagine that had Robert E. Lee won the Battle at Gettysburg, the South may have made peace with the North and the Civil War would perhaps soon have ended. After that the Confederacy would have referred to the conflict as The War of Independence. The French Revolution is seen as a positive outcome by most; but it did have its own “Reign of Terror.” Other examples could be cited of how history bestows a positive or negative designation on these activities depending on their outcomes.
It’s a puzzlement to me! I’ll now go and ask my very own, homegrown etymologist… and then I will share his ruling with you. If you want to add your own insights, you’re certainly welcome!
I meant to discuss this with you at the party Sunday, but it plum slipped my mind. So here goes:
ReplyDeleteI tend to think of counterterrorism as a security-based effort to prevent acts of terrorism by small radical groups, while counterinsurgency is an effort to suppress or oppose an attempted overthrow of the government by a much larger opponent.
Obviously, in the real world it's not as if these things are easily separated out. Maybe one way of separating them out is to see whether there's an attempt to provide some of the functions of government by the group that's opposing the established government. You might answer that question "yes" in the case of the Libyan rebels or the Taliban, but "no" in the case of Al Qaeda now or the Red Brigade in the 70s.
They're useful labels because they help to define a situation and to point to possibly useful strategies and tactics. However, I tend to see them as two points on a spectrum of political unrest. The reality is that most situations fall somewhere on that spectrum. Those labels might help point you towards some useful options, but you probably shouldn't let labels prevent you from seeing what's really happening and designing strategies and tactics appropriate to that specific situation.