Insurgency is a method of warfare which is typically adopted by a one or more sides in a conflict which have recognized their own material weakness (numbers, resources, training, etc.) in order to achieve their goals against a conventionally superior force or against a conventionally impossible situation. There are many situations where one nation and its allies might view a situation as a rebellion, whilst another nation and its allies would view it as a group with a legitimate military fighting another group with a legitimate military. The status of “recognition as a belligerent” is more of a diplomatic quality than an inherently strategic one. If one was to apply this definition to the War in Afghanistan, then the Afghan National Army should be considered the insurgent force due to its lack of control of the region coupled with its status as the rebelling group (one must remember that the Taliban used to be the government of Afghanistan). Arguably many well known insurgencies would not fall under this definition, or the opposite situation could occur. I find that this definition in no way covers the broad spectrum of situations that cover what would strategically be considered an insurgency. “Non-state actors engaged in a war against a state.”
“Insurrection against an existing government, usually one’s own, by a group not recognized as having the status of a belligerent.”Ī more simple way of phrasing this definition would be:
Random House provides this definition of the term “insurgency”: