Quote Originally Posted by GPaulus View Post
I believe that the insurgents' fight is not a political, religious or ideological manifesto like the media leads us to believe. As a result, the insurgency in Iraq wins if the struggle is protracted. They want to keep the intensity up for as long as they can using every method available. And against anyone who strives to bring order--the local marketer who refuses to withhold produce from the market, the religious leader calling for peace, the ISFs, the Military, anyone who oposes them getting their primal needs for power, money...met.
Any insurgency is either political, ideological, religious, or mixture of all three, GP. Your assertion about terrorists in an earlier paragraph is also flawed, as it does not reflect the changes that a terrorist group undergoes as it matures. Some may justify their actions using your categories, but at the end of the day the majority of the true terrorist groups do not care a wit about such things. They become more interested in "payback" and making big headlines through body counts. That's a matter of historical record, not speculation.

It's possible you're confusing the incorrect MSM use of "insurgency" (which covers a variety of activities) with a real insurgency. True insurgents have political goals, be they the creation of their own living space or ensuring participation for their specific ethnic group or religion.

And Tom, I agree to a degree with your observations about some historians but would also point out that the "instant history" school is deeply flawed when it comes to method and practice. The best balance comes from a combination of the two types, which isn't always possible.