from BW
.... from a piece I am working on on "Perspectives on Insurgency":

Traditional Perspective: “Insurgency and counterinsurgency (COIN) are complex subsets of warfare.”

Updated: Insurgency is an illegal political challenge to a governing body that may be either violent or non-violent in terms of tactics employed and campaign design. COIN is the action of that governing body working to prevent or resolve the civil emergency.
Addressing those concepts here rather than there seems more appropriate.

As to the "Traditional Perspective", I'd suggest that it could be presented as:

“Insurgency and counterinsurgency (COIN) are complex subsets of politfare and/or warfare.”

"Politfare" being the "conduct of" or "journey into" political action (see etymology of "fare"). Note this is not a rigorous definition, but merely a classification, such as "Homo S and Homo N are complex subsets of Hominidae."

The "and/or" is inserted to recognize that multiple variants can occur even when only two parties are involved: each party could use political action only, military action only, or a mix of both.

--------------------------------
As to the updated definition:

Updated: Insurgency is an illegal political challenge to a governing body that may be either violent or non-violent in terms of tactics employed and campaign design. COIN is the action of that governing body working to prevent or resolve the civil emergency.
If the political challenge is non-violent, why is it "illegal" and who makes it so ?

Similar thought, if the political challenge is non-violent, why should it be or develop into a "civil emergency" (whatever that is) ?

That definition might apply in an authoritarian country with a very rigid one-party line (all deviations from which, violent and non-violent, are "illegal" and all deviants are "insurgents" - "we shoot counter-revolutionaries.") and with an enhanced state security service which always operates in emergency mode.

------------------------
In Geneva-speak re: armed conflicts, we have to have at least two opposing "Powers" to the armed conflict; and, by analogy, at least two opposing "Powers" to political conflicts.

While Geneva-speak talks of "Powers", it does not really define the term - we know it when we see it.

Regards

Mike