I care deeply what each of you think, and I consider your responses carefully. Afterall, typically they are positions that I have held myself at one point in time. I just have come to where I have found them lacking in substance and have moved on to what I see as firmer ground. If you want me to move back to shakey ground you have to lead me there, not just order me return.

Webster

Civil War: a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country.

Insurgency: : a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency.

revolution:
: a fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed

Belligerency: : the state of being at war or in conflict; specifically : the status of a legally recognized belligerent state or nation


OK, not sure if that is helpful. Frankly I have admit that I am typically a bit baffled when pundits have thrown on the table with no real explanation as to what they mean that the conflict is Iraq/Afghanistan "is no longer an insurgency, its a civil war."

Ok, I'll bite. WTF? What do you base this assessment on (asking no one in particular), and how does the making of this assessment help you resolve the problem? I mean, if you can clearly define that situation A. is an insurgency, and therefore is cured with process A.; and that situation B. is a civil war, and is therefore cured with process B.; fine. That is helpful.

But if you are simply overwhelmed and confused by what is happening and figure that this is harder than insurgency, so it must be civil war; that doesn't help. It also makes little sense in general. These are not steps on a single scale, they are very different things. Granted, historically the these terms are used in an intermixed, inartful manner, so there is little to rely on by simply going to the historically accepted terms applied to various conflicts.

For example, the "American Revolution" was in my mind much more accurately a Separatist Insurgency. An illegal shadow government was formed with the purpose of leading a violent movement to break a piece of Great Britain off to form a new nation.

The American Civil War is very different in that the legal governments of each Confederate state voted for secession. Only after that was done was a new government formed to head the new country that was formed.

I'm not sure why some argue that there was civil war in Iraq; and I definitely do not see civil war in Afghanistan. Every populace has many unique and distinct segments. Insurgency is not caused by these segments, it is caused by the failure of the single government to provide good governance. It is only natural that many of these groups would define this differently and have distinct goals, ideology, leadership, etc in their approach to Poor Governance. This is why one must understand each dissatisfied segment of the populace's concerns as one works to fix the government. To merely play whack a mole with each group that dares to stand up and complain is arrogant insanity.