You mean… apart from DAANES in northern Syria (more commonly known as Rojava)? Or the Zapatista territories in Mexico?
Rojava is not a civilian uprising with guns, it’s a militia state backed by a regular army (YPG), with US air support, US bases, US supplies. They’re fighting ISIS, not overthrowing the Syrian state through street protests.
Zapatistas are actually proving my point… when they launched in 1994, they got absolutely crushed by the mexican military and had to retreat to jungles and small autonomous areas. The only reason they survive is political, it would be terrible PR for the mexican government to launch a campaign on them so they let them live in peace. They lost militarily, did not overthrow the mexican state, did not force anything at gunpoints, and don’t control any major population centers. I love the zapatistas for what they’re doing, did some ethnographic work with them so I’ve interacted with them in person: when they talk about their uprising they don’t talk about victory but rather about a week of terrible bloodshed and sadness.
All insurgencies start as civilian uprisings - with or without guns.
They’re fighting ISIS, not overthrowing the Syrian state through street protests.
No… they took advantage of Syrian state power fragmenting to launch their insurgency - which they could not have done without armaments. This was before tenuous US support arrived.
Zapatistas are actually proving my point…
No, it doesn’t. All insurgencies experience defeat initially. The Viet Minh was, at first, roundly crushed by French colonial forces. Before WW2, Mao’s rebels tasted nothing but defeat at the hands of Kuomintang forces. This is merely the historical pattern almost all insurgencies must pass through. Logistical reality dictates the fortunes of insurgencies - not their levels of commitment to either “peaceful” or “violent” means.
it would be terrible PR for the mexican government to launch a campaign on them
If you are going to take armchair revolutionaries to task for simplifying and essentialising the nature of insurgency (justified as it may be), you should be careful not to do the same yourself. If PR was the only thing standing between the Mexican state and crushing militant autonomy within it’s own borders, it would have happily already done so already.
Your comment made me do a very long sigh, but fine, I’ll engage.
This is on me for going into an Internet debate on a topic on which I have scholarly expertise.
All insurgencies start as civilian uprisings - with or without guns.
Rojava had long pre-existing structures, they’re not a random uprising that armed itself. It’s a political party (PYD) and its professional militia (YPG) with command structure, logistics, training, external Kurdish support, not civilians grabbing weapons for a spontaneous revolt. It’s a disciplined paramilitary organization seizing territory when the Syrian regime pulled back, with US support.
This also applies to Talibans, FARC, ETA, LTTE, Hamas, etc. There are literally no examples of successful modern insurgencies *starting* as civilian uprisings. This is factually untrue. You are wrong.
they took advantage of Syrian state power fragmenting to launch their insurgency
This did not happen.
The PYD/YPG walked into a power vacuum and set up local governance. They did not wage an armed campaign against the Syrian state. They actually maintained a non-aggression pact with Assad for years. You cannot launch an insurgency against a state you’re not fighting.
The Syrian state did not lose Rojava because civilians had guns. It lost Rojava because Assad abandoned it. If he wanted that area, YPG rifles would not have stopped the Syrian air force, artillery, missiles, armor. We know this because when Assad did want territory, he flattened entire districts full of people with weapons who couldn’t do shit about it.
zapatista / vietminh / mao comparion
Youtube clip of the “bruh sound effect #2”
This is an unserious comparison.
Mao and the Viet Minh had millions of military grade fighters, supplies, training, heavy weapons, regime collapses that opened power vacuums, massive foreign backing, whereas the Zapatistas have rifles in some isolated rural communities and a few thousand non-military fighters.
This is merely the historical pattern almost all insurgencies must pass through.
Most insurgencies don’t start as peasant uprisings that get crushed and then re-emerge lmao
Talibans emerged from Mujahideen networks with Pakistani support, Hezoballah began with heavy iranian backing, LTTE instantly had external funding and territorial control, FARC never had a spectacular early defeat, ISIS captured Mosul in days… you’re just using some romantic examples from a handful of cold war cases and thinking they’re a general principle. They’re not.
If PR was the only thing standing between the Mexican state and crushing militant autonomy within it’s own borders, it would have happily already done so already.
The timing of the insurgency was not random.
The PRI’s legitimacy was fragile at the time. NAFTA had just launched, massacring indigenous rebels would have jeopardized it. The Catholic Church (very very important for PR in mexico) was asking to mediate a ceasefire. It’s political optics that constrained the state.
Besides, Mexico did crush them militarily. It took 12 days.
Modern states can annihilate insurgents when they stop caring about optics. see: Russia/Chechnya, Syria/Hama, Sri Lanka/LTTE, China/Xinjiang, Turkey/PKK, Ethiopia/Tigray, Myanmar/Rohingya, etc…
Mexico chose to not join this club. States restrain themselves for political reasons, not for fear of insurgents.
If you are going to take armchair revolutionaries to task for simplifying and essentialising the nature of insurgency (justified as it may be), you should be careful not to do the same yourself.
Pointing out the political context of the EZLN isn’t simplifying insurgency, it’s knowing the history.
not civilians grabbing weapons for a spontaneous revolt.
Again… is that how I characterised them?
This is an unserious comparison.
Where did I compare them, Clyde? I merely used them to demonstrate that suffering military reversal does not necessarily mean the end of an insurgency.
There are literally no examples of successful modern insurgencies starting as civilian uprisings.
There is no such thing as an insurgency (“modern” or otherwise) that doesn’t start with civilian uprisings. No extant insurgency has “modern” roots - if that is what you demand an example off I’ll simply write your demand off as ridiculous and not worth bothering with.
They did not wage an armed campaign against the Syrian state.
Somehow, I don’t think Assad would have seen it that way if he had won the civil war.
It’s political optics that constrained the state.
Merely optics to you, actual political threats to them.
Besides, Mexico did crush them militarily. It took 12 days.
Again… not the first insurgency to survive military reversal.
Modern states can annihilate insurgents when they stop caring about optics.
Caring about “optics” is not the reason Russia suffered defeat during the 1st Chechen War.
Most insurgencies don’t start as peasant uprisings that get crushed and then re-emerge lmao
Complete mischaracterisation of what I actually said. Most insurgencies do experience military reversal at some point in their existence or other. And no…
you’re just using some romantic examples
…I never claimed there was anything “romantic” (whatever that means) about it.
You mean… apart from DAANES in northern Syria (more commonly known as Rojava)? Or the Zapatista territories in Mexico?
That’s two… I know you only asked for one.
Zapatistas were 1990s. 20th century
The 90s is modern.
But not 21st century.
I actually broadly agree with you but I must fight you over pedantry.
Rojava is not a civilian uprising with guns, it’s a militia state backed by a regular army (YPG), with US air support, US bases, US supplies. They’re fighting ISIS, not overthrowing the Syrian state through street protests.
Zapatistas are actually proving my point… when they launched in 1994, they got absolutely crushed by the mexican military and had to retreat to jungles and small autonomous areas. The only reason they survive is political, it would be terrible PR for the mexican government to launch a campaign on them so they let them live in peace. They lost militarily, did not overthrow the mexican state, did not force anything at gunpoints, and don’t control any major population centers. I love the zapatistas for what they’re doing, did some ethnographic work with them so I’ve interacted with them in person: when they talk about their uprising they don’t talk about victory but rather about a week of terrible bloodshed and sadness.
All insurgencies start as civilian uprisings - with or without guns.
No… they took advantage of Syrian state power fragmenting to launch their insurgency - which they could not have done without armaments. This was before tenuous US support arrived.
No, it doesn’t. All insurgencies experience defeat initially. The Viet Minh was, at first, roundly crushed by French colonial forces. Before WW2, Mao’s rebels tasted nothing but defeat at the hands of Kuomintang forces. This is merely the historical pattern almost all insurgencies must pass through. Logistical reality dictates the fortunes of insurgencies - not their levels of commitment to either “peaceful” or “violent” means.
If you are going to take armchair revolutionaries to task for simplifying and essentialising the nature of insurgency (justified as it may be), you should be careful not to do the same yourself. If PR was the only thing standing between the Mexican state and crushing militant autonomy within it’s own borders, it would have happily already done so already.
Your comment made me do a very long sigh, but fine, I’ll engage.
This is on me for going into an Internet debate on a topic on which I have scholarly expertise.
Rojava had long pre-existing structures, they’re not a random uprising that armed itself. It’s a political party (PYD) and its professional militia (YPG) with command structure, logistics, training, external Kurdish support, not civilians grabbing weapons for a spontaneous revolt. It’s a disciplined paramilitary organization seizing territory when the Syrian regime pulled back, with US support.
This also applies to Talibans, FARC, ETA, LTTE, Hamas, etc. There are literally no examples of successful modern insurgencies *starting* as civilian uprisings. This is factually untrue. You are wrong.
This did not happen.
The PYD/YPG walked into a power vacuum and set up local governance. They did not wage an armed campaign against the Syrian state. They actually maintained a non-aggression pact with Assad for years. You cannot launch an insurgency against a state you’re not fighting.
The Syrian state did not lose Rojava because civilians had guns. It lost Rojava because Assad abandoned it. If he wanted that area, YPG rifles would not have stopped the Syrian air force, artillery, missiles, armor. We know this because when Assad did want territory, he flattened entire districts full of people with weapons who couldn’t do shit about it.
Youtube clip of the “bruh sound effect #2”
This is an unserious comparison.
Mao and the Viet Minh had millions of military grade fighters, supplies, training, heavy weapons, regime collapses that opened power vacuums, massive foreign backing, whereas the Zapatistas have rifles in some isolated rural communities and a few thousand non-military fighters.
Most insurgencies don’t start as peasant uprisings that get crushed and then re-emerge lmao
Talibans emerged from Mujahideen networks with Pakistani support, Hezoballah began with heavy iranian backing, LTTE instantly had external funding and territorial control, FARC never had a spectacular early defeat, ISIS captured Mosul in days… you’re just using some romantic examples from a handful of cold war cases and thinking they’re a general principle. They’re not.
The timing of the insurgency was not random.
The PRI’s legitimacy was fragile at the time. NAFTA had just launched, massacring indigenous rebels would have jeopardized it. The Catholic Church (very very important for PR in mexico) was asking to mediate a ceasefire. It’s political optics that constrained the state.
Besides, Mexico did crush them militarily. It took 12 days.
Modern states can annihilate insurgents when they stop caring about optics. see: Russia/Chechnya, Syria/Hama, Sri Lanka/LTTE, China/Xinjiang, Turkey/PKK, Ethiopia/Tigray, Myanmar/Rohingya, etc…
Mexico chose to not join this club. States restrain themselves for political reasons, not for fear of insurgents.
Pointing out the political context of the EZLN isn’t simplifying insurgency, it’s knowing the history.
I’m not making a theory, I’m explaining a case.
You’re the one stretching an outlier into a rule.
Is that what I called them?
Again… is that how I characterised them?
Where did I compare them, Clyde? I merely used them to demonstrate that suffering military reversal does not necessarily mean the end of an insurgency.
There is no such thing as an insurgency (“modern” or otherwise) that doesn’t start with civilian uprisings. No extant insurgency has “modern” roots - if that is what you demand an example off I’ll simply write your demand off as ridiculous and not worth bothering with.
Somehow, I don’t think Assad would have seen it that way if he had won the civil war.
Merely optics to you, actual political threats to them.
Again… not the first insurgency to survive military reversal.
Caring about “optics” is not the reason Russia suffered defeat during the 1st Chechen War.
Complete mischaracterisation of what I actually said. Most insurgencies do experience military reversal at some point in their existence or other. And no…
…I never claimed there was anything “romantic” (whatever that means) about it.