Here are some thoughts i have have about this subjects and your theories about them.

-To start of one of the points of critique i have towards your insurgency model is that you view insurgency as a product of bad governance which causes people to rise up against the government.
My view on the issue is that you can distinguish a two-part struggle within an insurgency (or rebellion or whatever you want to call it).
You got the actual war or conflict part which is fought between two or more parties, whose goals or views are total opposites of each other and thus require military force so that one side can impose his will on the other party.
And then you got the part of people rising up against the government (or some other actor), and this part is formed thanks to bad governance and not thanks to opposing political views.
So essentially i view insurgency as divided between the need of a political group to impose its political views on another group who has political views who are entirely different from those of the first group.
And in this process the first group enlist the help of the populance or atleast a part of the populance by attacking the bad governance of the opposing group and promising them good governance.

-Now about the point of the Non-violent completion of political goals, what about information campaigns that can sway the opinions of the population or the international community.
here's a potential example of this kind of aproach (the palestine-israel issue is full of examples of this sort of aproach)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_(ship)
another example could be the gaza flotilla or the Al-Durrah incident, wikileaks maybe?

-a possible counterpoint is of course that you would need more popular support to conduct mass-movement prostests then you would need to conduct a guerilla/terror campaign (albeit it might not be too succesfull) and thus it might not be too popular with certain groups.

So i hope you suceeded in comprehending what i was trying to say, and i hope i made a usefull contribution to the debate.