I should have mentioned this in the earlier post.

Those of you familiar with counterinsurgency theory will recognize this is not an original analysis. It is both conventional and within the framework of FM 3-24. Here are a few brief excerpts showing this.

1. WWII as a bright line dividing insurgencies.

“The modern era of insurgencies and internal wars began after World War II.” (1-19)

“Clausewitz thought that wars by an armed populace could only serve as a strategic defense; however, theorists after World War II realized that insurgency could be a decisive form of warfare. This era spawned the Maoist, Che Guevara-type focoist, and urban approaches to insurgency.” (1-20)

More specifically, FM 3-34 notes the key role of Mao in bringing 4GW theory to maturity, although never using the term 4GW. See the extended discussion of Mao in 1-30 through 1-39, and the use throughout of Mao’s terms and concepts.

For example, Mao’s emphasis on political over military factors is rigorously adhered to – although attributed to Mao only in 1-123.

2. The key distinction between civil wars and wars of national liberation.

This distinction is frequently noted, although often not followed up in the analysis or recommendations. For example: “The exception to this pattern of internal war involves resistance movements, where indigenous elements seek to expel or overthrow what they perceive to be a foreign or occupation government.” (1-6).

An analysis of FM 3-24 treatment of these two kinds of insurgencies is beyond the scope of a brief note like this, but I point you also to 1-135, 1-147, and esp. 2-11. This contradiction is never addressed.