All revolutions are germane to the understanding of revolution.

Most like to focus on the differences, and those differences are indeed important to understanding a particular revolution in greater detail. What I find much more interesting are the similarities, for in the similarities is where one finds the keys to begin understanding other situations occurring now and yet to occur.

Why a minority of Americans stood up to the Crown, or why a minority of French did the same a few years later, or the differences between Arab Spring in Tunisia vs Egypt vs any of the other several countries is all very fascinating. But the similarities? Those are the missing keys to our understanding of this dynamic in general.

This is the type of analysis that Clausewitz applied to the study of conflict between states, and yes, while all wars are different, his work provides a start point for understanding war in general because he thought about what are the commonalities of war. I am sure he was told time and again "Carl, all wars are different." I suspect he agreed, yet he continued his study and thinking about the commonalities all the same.

One thing that holds us back today is that most just lump internal revolution and insurgency in with all other types of warfare. I believe this is a huge mistake that has led to much of the struggles governments have in resolving these internal conflicts. The nature of the roles and relationships between the parties, the fact that there is a shared populace that both sides emerge from, etc all combine to make insurgency and particularly revolutionary insurgency unique from war between states, or resistance insurgency (which is a continuation of war between states).

People can point out distinctions all day long. Noted. It is not hard to notice the differences. What about the similarities, and of those which are important in that they provide clues to better understanding where such conditions are brewing today and how to best resolve such conflicts where they already occur? Equally important, how does a major power such as the US engage the world in the pursuit of her interests in a manner that does not put her into the middle of such conflicts. On 9/11 we learned (or should have learned) that it is equally dangerous to simply put ones self in the middle of a pre-conflict situation as well.

Did George Washington volunteer to lead a revolution that could well have cost him his fortune, his life, and most importantly to that proud and honorable man, his reputation, because he read a book? Unlikely, and not according to anything I have read on the man and the times.

But spending a life constantly held in a cash poor condition due to laws levied on him from England no matter how land rich he became. Being treated his entire life as a second class citizen by every citizen who just happened to be born in England, regardless of their actual stations in life. Being ordered to take orders from a wet behind the ears regular officer far junior to himself even though he was far more experienced, a true hero of the British Army, and a natural leader in battle and peace that men followed instinctively. Being force to spend what little he had to purchase inferior goods unfit for sell in England that were exported to the colonies and sold at grossly inflated prices. Never underestimate the motivational power of processes that systematically disrespect some group that has every right to be treated with respect. It is powerful forces of human nature like these that lead populaces to revolt

The British were not intentionally arrogant, controlling a-holes, but the people they affected around the world perceived them as such. Similarly with Americans and the people we interact with in the modern age. The British saw friction to their governance as the acts of a few ungrateful radicals, and most could not empathize with the grievances they heard, and blew off the opinions of those British voices who found merit in those same complaints. We see the same in America today.

Our Declaration, our Constitution, these are more than just foundational articles of governance for a new nation. They are wise oracles from the past warning future generations of how to guard a society against the type of instability and unrest that led to the revolt they lived through. Would we pay more attention if they were found in a clay jar in some desert cave? Would we pay more attention if they were found with in some strange spacecraft crashed into an Iowa corn field? Probably not.

I do not believe America needs to go out and make the world more like us. I do believe, however, that America needs to act in accordance with our own principles when we go out into the world, with the firm belief that any rights we hold for ourselves we grant equally to others.