3 ms·

Insurgency is a specific word with specific meaning -- it's an attack against a recognized authority (in the modern context, recognized typically means recogniz

by cwyers 11y ago

Insurgency is a specific word with specific meaning -- it's an attack against a recognized authority (in the modern context, recognized typically means recognized by the United Nations) by a party not recognized (again, in the modern parlance, by the UN) as a belligerent. In Iraq, the insurgency didn't hold territory, for instance, or have any of the other trappings of a state actor in a military conflict. Counter-insurgency tactics are very different than a straight-up fight in a civil war. It's not Orwellian to use words to describe the things the words are intended to describe.

unclesaamm 11y ago
This loses meaning when we realize that the US is a huge force behind defining who is "recognized" or not anyway. Also this doesnt change the fact that during the American Revolution, the British were much more "recognized" in the international space than America -- so why were we rebels and not insurgents? But let's not over glorify the terrorists either. I think Naomi Klein said it well that if you had to choose on a deadly multiple choice questionnaire between American imperialism and fundamentalist terror, the correct answer is "none of the above."
- cwyers 11y ago
  Recognized is a binary; you either are or you aren't. The colonies behaved like a nation-state during the Revolutionary War -- they had ambassadors to multiple European nations during the conflict, for instance. The American revolutionaries also raised an army, for instance. They wore uniforms, etc. Similarly, during the Civil War, the Confederacy was not an insurgency and we didn't treat it as such.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >Recognized is a binary; you either are or you aren't. Diplomacy is much more nuanced. While you might or might not be recognized in the official sense, there's a broad spectrum or relationships and attitudes that imply recognition. E.g. there are players that are not official, but nethertheless have relationships with state players, and are thus recognized for discussions, negotiations, etc.
    - cwyers 11y ago
      I worded that poorly, yeah. But the British being "more recognized" doesn't turn the colonists into an insurgency.

by cwyers 11y ago

unclesaamm 11y ago

This loses meaning when we realize that the US is a huge force behind defining who is "recognized" or not anyway. Also this doesnt change the fact that during the American Revolution, the British were much more "recognized" in the international space than America -- so why were we rebels and not insurgents? But let's not over glorify the terrorists either. I think Naomi Klein said it well that if you had to choose on a deadly multiple choice questionnaire between American imperialism and fundamentalist terror, the correct answer is "none of the above."

cwyers 11y ago
Recognized is a binary; you either are or you aren't. The colonies behaved like a nation-state during the Revolutionary War -- they had ambassadors to multiple European nations during the conflict, for instance. The American revolutionaries also raised an army, for instance. They wore uniforms, etc. Similarly, during the Civil War, the Confederacy was not an insurgency and we didn't treat it as such.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >Recognized is a binary; you either are or you aren't. Diplomacy is much more nuanced. While you might or might not be recognized in the official sense, there's a broad spectrum or relationships and attitudes that imply recognition. E.g. there are players that are not official, but nethertheless have relationships with state players, and are thus recognized for discussions, negotiations, etc.
  - cwyers 11y ago
    I worded that poorly, yeah. But the British being "more recognized" doesn't turn the colonists into an insurgency.