The answer to the question is definitely yes. An insurgent doesn't have to have national aspirations to be an insurgent - if the group is seeking to (violently) compete or replace local government with his own version of it, he is an insurgent. The extent to which several such groups can be called "one insurgency" depends on the extent to which these directly or indirectly cooperate: if they all share a common interest in weakening the central government, they may work together or mutually support each other in their (local and/or national) goals. Every successful act by a single "local" insurgent de-facto supports all the others, if nothing else then at the level of propaganda.
Northern Afghanistan is a good example, because there seems to be a number of groups and individuals which are not just conducting "local resistance", but are explicitly aligning themselves with the Taliban cause (even though the exact nature of central support or direction can be unclear in each particular case). This makes sense - alone they will struggle to be more than glorified criminals; aligned with the Taliban they suddenly have an ideological narrative and greater cause with which to bolster and legitimate their claims. Vice versa - that is probably exactly what the central Taliban is trying to exploit to widen its base. There seems to be little reason to see the events in the north as somehow separate from the insurgency as a whole, or indeed as somehow different in nature from what is going on in Helmand or Kandahar. True, due to the different ethnic mix up there, it is much harder to conduct a primarily pashtun-based insurgency, but they are clearly succeeding. Surely, the myth of the north's unique immunity to insurgency must soon die?
Bookmarks