Crenshaw Model

The advent of modern technology following the World Wars put mass violence in the spotlight. The average person was now able to view these atrocities from their homes. This gave rise to public disapproval for wars like the Vietnam War, and more recently the Iraq/Afghanistan War. Access to violence was no longer reserved to soldiers and government officials. This can have a surprising result on a country. Insurgents could develop within the country. This access to violence is a why insurgency now corresponds with terrorism. There are conditions for insurgency, such as “rural areas, low per capita income, political instability” . However, those conditions are predicated on “the relativity of insurgent strength to government strength” . Fearon

Fearon also mentions “for the last 50 years of civil wars, insurgents tend to have control in mostly rural areas at night, while days belong to security forces, particularly in urban strongholds” On Crenshaw’s model, Crenshaw says terrorism is becoming increasing urban. Crenshaw even explains it as “urban guerilla warfare” . This is different from Fearon and Laitin’s model of rural areas. Crenshaw also describes terrorism as “small and clandestine” . Given that these insurgencies are small, it is no surprise why Crenshaw says “governments have an inability or unwillingness to prevent terrorism” . As for, Fearon and Laitin they say the structure for insurgencies are not clandestine. They involve more various functions with their political and military acts. This is where the models start to conflict with each other. Insurgencies can form traditional terrorist groups, while “terrorism is a tool that is used by insurgencies in their strategy to overthrow governments” . Therefore, there is terrorism through insurgency. This apparent conflict is why insurgencies get started. The conditions of this conflict are easily seen, yet ever changing with different forms of political violence. Hence, why terrorism has become more associated with insurgencies. From this perspective, these conflicts employ different forms of political violence, to achieve

These Maoist parties used both covert and non-covert tools to win the government. “it continued many of its covert, illicit activities even as its main organs moved above-ground. It not only embraced all elements delimited, through, but moved aggressively to use covert violence… terrorism carried out against local political opponents as opposed to overt guerrilla warfare… to solidify its position and to win parliamentary votes. It used specially constituted forces, notably the Young Communist League (YCL), to carry out these attacks. The Maoists were effective to the point that they were able to control elections and twice held the prime ministership (a third Maoist administration is ongoing), which allowed the Party to neutralize still further remaining resistance within the demoralized security forces and to expand its influence and solidify its finances.” This shows the different forms to which an insurgency can take. Another cause for insurgency with terrorism is the what they are after. The main goal of an insurgency is to over throw the government, but what do they go after in the process to achieve that. There is no underlying difference between the goals of pure and insurgencies, but