My dad fought the VC guerrillas. They even shelled the airstrip where he was stationed. Reagan and Ollie North armed the Nicaraguan guerrillas. I never seem to hear the word guerrilla used much these days.
Early on, we fought the Iraq insurgents. Now they are called militants.
The poor sods in Libya don’t have a fancy name. They are called NTC fighters.
Is there any difference in these words? Do certain situations require guerrillas and others militants? Whats the difference in an insurgent and militant?
In general, guerrillas fight against a foreign invader. Insurgents fight against their own government. Militants are people who are in favor of force in general.
As I understand it an “insurgent” is someone fighting against a country’s legitimate authorities; we labeled them “insurgents” instead of say “the Iraqi Resistance” because we wanted to pretend that we weren’t indulging in conquest and the government we propped up was legitimate. In other words, it was like calling their guys terrorists and our guys freedom fighters during the Cold War; political rhetoric designed to make us look good and the other side look bad.
This word was first used to describe Spanish fighters against the French during the Peninsula Campaign of the Napoleonic wars, IMO it is more a description of tactics rather than cause or aims. Specifically avoiding large scale battles in favour of harassment, raiding and sabotage.
Someone how violently rebels against the established authority in a country or province. This word is favoured nowadays as there is a in implied illegitimacy to their actions.
As a noun this refers to fighters who are not part of an established military (as opposed to its adjective form which is applied to someone who is extreme and aggressive in their support of a cause).
The bright-line distinction there is usually that terrorists attack non-combatant civilians, while freedom fighters attack the actual oppressors, usually an incumbent or occupying government and/or military.
Of course, that distinction also gets blurred, in that almost all methods of fighting will end up killing some civilians, and it’s not always clear who’s a combatant. Thus, for example, an attack against a nation’s military headquarters can be described as a “terrorist attack”, even though the accuracy of that label might be disputable.
Perhaps that’s how it should be; but realistically, it just means “our guys” and “their guys”. “Freedom fighter” especially is a blatantly political term, like “Freedom Fries” or referring to your troops as “liberators”.
Strictly speaking the term “freedom fighter” doesn’t tell you anything at all about the tactics being used, but rather about the goal [which the speaker thinks is] being pursued. Thus it’s perfectly possible to be a “freedom fighter” in the sense of aiming to achieve, say, national self-determination from a colonial power, and at the same time to employ what are undoubtedly terrorist tactics in your struggle.
In general, therefore, whether someone is called a “freedom fighter” or a “terrorist” doesn’t tell you much about him, but it tells you a good deal about the person who selects one label over the other.
So, in the mouths of (say) the US government, “freedom fighters” are guerillas whose cause is seen to be aligned with the interests of the United States, while “terrorists” are guerillas whose cause is seen to be antithetical to the interests of the US.
[Not wishing to single out the US government here; you could substitute any other government and the statement would still be broadly true.]
That’s my experience, and I’ve been in the position of having to defend myself from people who wouldn’t have been able to find Euskal Herria (“the land of the Basque”) if you dropped them in Roncesvalles, yet who were offended by my considering their ETA “freedom fighters” a bunch of butchering terrorists. Same kind of idiots but on the other side of the dictionary have tried to hit me as well for simply being from Euskal Herria. At least that one who wanted to bomb any country which had ever had any terrorists shut up when I asked whether his own country would go first and hadn’t tried to hit me… he just wanted to kill half the world to protect it from itself.
That may have been how the term originated, but it’s not how it has generally been used in the recent past. For example, many Latin American rebel groups, including the FARC, Sendero Luminoso, Tupamaros, Sandinistas, and Contras, are all frequently referred to as guerrillas. The term reflects tactics rather than who they are fighting against.
But what do all those groups have in common? They speak Spanish. A guerrilla is someone who fights a guerra. I’d say the difference between “rebel”, “guerrilla”, “insurgent”, et al. is more linguistic than political.
No its some who fights a “little war” (its the diminutive form). It implies irregular tactics (raids, ambushes, and sabotage) rather than pitched battles. Its a Spanish word as it was first used to describe Spanish resistance to Napoleon during the Peninsula Campaign of the the Napoleonic words.
They are called NTC fighters.