Quote Originally Posted by Rex Brynen View Post
Perhaps you're projecting too much from the US case? Most civil wars (English, Russian, Lebanese, Liberian, etc) aren't primarily about political separation, they're about control.
I Recognize that "civil war" is a term used to describe all kinds of conflicts; most of which I would argue really weren't civil wars at all but rather were more insurgencies. But with no firm definitions to work with, why argue? So not projecting the US verson, but merely seeing it as distinct from insurgency, so perhaps a workable model for a definition of Civil War that is also distinct from insurgency.

Size is not a good distinction, and as the Maoist model suggests an insurgency can grow until it becomes very conventional in nature, so type of warfare being waged is not a good distinction either. I think you have to look at the causal roots to find viable distinctions; and this is also where you shape viable COAs for dealing with a conflict as well.

The historically sloppy use of the term "civil war" by historians really clouds development of a workable definition that makes it distinct from insurgency in a meaningful, helpful way.