Graduation - 2024 - December (Open Access)

Permanent URI for this collection

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/125747

Browse

Browsing Graduation - 2024 - December (Open Access) by Subject "Terrorism -- Religious aspects -- Islam"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A typology of counterinsurgency approaches towards ISIS-Allegiant insurgency groups: variations between the Western States and The Global South
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2024-12) Hlwatika, Vuyokazi Zintathu Maragaret; Lamb, Guy; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences. Dept. of Political Science.
    The study of counterinsurgency (COIN) is dominated by the experiences of Western states. While there is value in learning about the COIN practices of such states, the COIN strategies employed by these states are not always applicable to states in the Global South. This incompatibility has led to the development of different approaches to COIN. These variations in COIN approaches occur even when states face a similar kind of insurgency threat. One of the most serious types of insurgency threats facing states today is jihadism. While jihadist insurgencies are not new, jihadist insurgent groups have proliferated since the 9/11 attacks and the Global War on Terror (GWOT) that ensued. The most prominent of these groups is the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Although ISIS has lost nearly all its territory since its peak years of 2014 – 2017, the group continues to maintain influence over other jihadist groups (Ohlers, 2017). Consequently, many of these smaller groups have since pledged allegiance to ISIS and declared themselves ISIS governorates. For eight consecutive years, ISIS and its affiliates have caused more terrorism related deaths than any other non-state group (IEP, 2022). This study asks the question ‘Why do states take different COIN approaches to ISIS-allegiant insurgency threats?’ In pursuit of an answer, a multiple case study design is used to compare the COIN approaches of the United Kingdom (UK), France, the United States of America (U.S.), Pakistan, Nigeria, and Mozambique. In each case, an analysis of five analytical variables is presented: the state’s history of violent opposition, the nature of violent extremism it faces, the type of government it has as well as of the strength of its regional ties and the influence of prominent international COIN actors. The differences and similarities of these variables across the six states chosen are then categorised and tabulated, resulting in an explanatory typology. This typology uses the research findings to explain why, based on the five analytical variables, states choose different COIN approaches. This study has three aims. First, the study seeks to address the lack of COIN literature on states in the Global South. Second, the study seeks to explain why states make use of different COIN approaches despite facing a similar threat. Third, the study seeks to create an explanatory typology that can be used to other states against the same variable to test its validity. The findings in this study determine that Western states utilise traditional COIN approaches while those in the Global South have forged their own kind of COIN warfare. While the U.S., UK, and France adhere to what this study terms a ‘Colonial/Imperial COIN Model,’ Pakistan and Nigeria make use of a ‘Bargaining Model,’ and Mozambique makes use of an ‘Authoritarian Model.’ Each of these categories is determined by shared similarities within the five analytical variables.