A group of armed members that opposes the state by using violence to seize control of territory or disrupt state operations. Unlike traditional guerilla movements, which had a more holistic political strategy and an ideological component, modern insurgency groups typically lack an ideology, but focus on a narrow set of tactical objectives, such as attacking foreign tourists, exploding bombs inside government buildings, or kidnapping and murdering civilians. This often results in a more complex form of insurgent rule, where insurgents have overlapping, complementary, or conflicting zones of dominance over parts of a population.
Insurgency groups can have different origins, including those with’movement’ or ‘insurgent’ origins, and those with’state splinter’ origins. These distinctions are useful in analysing how armed groups evolve, and are especially important in understanding war-to-peace transitions and post-war governance arrangements.
Integrated groups have well-institutionalised central command and control over local units, and are the most militarily effective. They are able to carefully coordinate strategy, and keep fighting even in difficult situations. Examples include the Tamil Tigers from the mid-1980s, the Afghan Taliban, and Hamas.
Vanguard groups have a strong central command but weak local control. They can decay into fragmented groups if their leaders are decapitated, as was the case with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in 1995. They can also be undermined from below by disloyal local units, as was the case with the M-19 insurgency in Colombia.
Swarming and rapid adaptation will dominate next-gen insurgencies. Fundraising and weapons procurement will no longer be confined to physical networks of insurgents, and will increasingly be done online. For example, guerrillas can now raise funds through dark web contributions (a nefarious mirror of GoFundMe) or cybercrime. They may use deepfake technology to construct virtual leadership committees and project a unified – but fictional – global face to their movement.