Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
But not all armed rebellions are politics. Some are for power, some are for money; both of which will affect politics, but neither of which are politically driven.
If its for power, then it is political. Politics is power over people. It is not just what politicians do. All conflict is driven by politics, because all conflict seeks to alter political power. Populations rebel for that reason.
3. Insurgencies require a popular base. Many armed rebellions, particularly those of the type described in #2 above, do not require and typically do not possess such a base. To lump these all together leads to inappropriate responses.
Example? All the definitions of insurgency I know of, make no such distinction. The appropriateness of the response is defined by the policy, not the conflict.
I strongly believe that the presence or absence of violence is a poor way to define a conflict.
Well no violance, no conflict.
5. knowing if the rebels are armed and violent is important for the design of my "counter-rebel" operations; but offers no clues as to what conditions must be addressed, or how those undefined conditions might best be addressed to resolve the causation for the rebellion.
It is not the job of the Army to resolve the problem. Defeat the rebels, then the government can do what it wants.
Dealing with an "armed rebellion" in some colonial enterprise is completely different than dealing with an "armed rebellion" at home. The stakes at home are much higher; and the residual consequences of tactical choices, win or lose, are both much higher at home.
Well the logic of that is infantry tactics in a civil war are different from that of a war with another nation. The only difference between foreign and domestic is the policy.
None of this can be fairly described by such a broad and inartful distinction as "armed rebellion."
Broad and inartful? Those words have sufficed for 5,000 years. I see no reason to change.