and your answer to my "recon probe". Taking its two parts separately:

from John
Up front...I continue to wrestle with the distinction. Here are a couple of ideological based insurgent group ideas.... arguably religion could enter the discussion. I say the Ku Klux Klan, under the auspices of racism perhaps, but also ideological. Additionally, al Qaeda, depending on distinction, is ideological. Honestly, I believe the distinction, in the context of al Qaeda, is subtle if we agree that their strategic endstate is restoration of the Caliphate. Here is my thought, if one labels AQ, in a broader context as terrorists, than one could argue they are waging a war against governments to expand their ideology. Yet, that ideology is established to restore a political model.
The 20th Century Klan was very political - e.g., in the 1920s, it heavily influenced a few state goverments and many local governments; in the 50-60s, some local governments; and we have David Duke, the new face of the Klan.

As to AQ, it is very much political cuz, in its Salafist ideology, religion and politics are intertwined, and AQ is very religious (to the extreme of dogmatic rigidity). The political struggle and the military struggle are all part of its campaigns based on a "common Jihad" (defensive jihad and offensive jihad - the "Lesser Jihad"), and the more personalized struggle (the non-violent "Greater Jihad"). This follows (but more violently) the 1939 construct of Maududi - presented by JMM in simplistic form, You're moving in the right direction, and agreed as to their substance by COL Jones, To me these points are important and true. Without getting into it, Bob and I also agree about the problems caused by over-obsession and over-reaction to AQ.

In general, I see problems in trying to separate insurgencies into political and ideological. A primary reason is that the ideology of the leadership may not be reflected in the "Cause" which is the subject matter of the insugency's "Narrative", as explained here, Distinguishing "Causes" from "causes"; and also COL Jones, Agreed as to what a cause is, and Marct, (untitled).

-----------------------------
You have briefly met Wilf and Surferbeetle (aka Commandant Steve of the ad hoc SWC Civil Affairs Team, an engineer who dabbled in biochem; I, a biochem who dabbled in engineering, and later a lawyer - a label shared with COL Jones who went on to better things).

Having gone back and forth with both of them, publically and privately, I'd say there is much truth in Wif's comment:

I think we may be in agreement.
and we certainly are in the same boat. The differences come from who should be pulling the oars, starboard and port - and how to describe the oars.

As to all of our "oar descriptions", we sometimes "lack rigour" (a Wilfimism) in our terminology and so we have to work toward at least "working definitions" (fully explained by Marct, IIRC, somewhere at SWC).

As to the starboard and port issues, most all recognize that wars involve a political struggle and military struggle (political effort and military effort in less Maoist terms), in greater or lesser degrees depending on the armed conflict.

From Wilf's standpoint, the military effort and the political effort should be very separate (in who), but co-ordinated (in how and what) - e.g., the British experience, Malaya, etc., following Callwell and Kitson naming just two.

Because of US doctrine and (frankly) capabilities, Steve the Surfer and JMM see both the political and military efforts as involving the military (following a modified Mao-Giap approach - see John McCuen's, The Art of Counter-Revolutionary War, reprint available from Hailer Publishing).

Which brings us to the practitioner at the tactical level.

----------------------------
I'm going to split this into parts

end part 1