Hi Wilf,

Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
...but the English Civil was nothing to do with the autonomy or the creation separate states. It was an entirely to do with the absolute authority of the king. It was a war about the type of government.
I agree, it was over the type of government which, I would argue, is what is going on in Afghanistan right now. The Taliban want one type of government, NATO wants another type and many individual people and groups want still another type. Personally, I don't think that a civil war requires the creation of separate successor states - I view that as a sub-set of civil wars.

Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
There are as many causes of civil wars as there are any other type of war or even "insurgencies." What is more, attempting to differentiate these things gets us no further forward.
I agree as to the multiplicity of causes, but I'll disagree with you on whether or not that gets thing further forward . If the desired end state of one group is to create a successor state, then we can pretty much predict what components of their strategy will be (generally defensive militarily, although a TKO strike is a definite option; a long war with an emphasis on diplomatic recognition; etc.). The same holds true for a war about forms of governance, although the general strategy would be somewhat different and include a much greater degree of education / indoctrination (IO, PR, etc.) and much less reliance on diplomancy.