Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
I care deeply what each of you think, and I consider your responses carefully.
Uh, forgive me but a number of folks here have, over the last couple of years offered considered and consistent responses to your thesis. As nearly as I can determine, you haven't cared other than superficially what any of them had to say.
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.
How very nice of you to condescend to admission that at one point you too were ignorant...
If you want me to move back to shakey ground you have to lead me there, not just order me return.
No one has attempted to order you to do anything. Several have acknowledged the logic of your focus and some of your prescriptions while disagreeing with other prescriptions and your one size fits all approach. You offer counter argument which is predictably poor governance and / or lessons the American Revolution and picking on poor old George III.

Consider the possibility that some of us also progressed from accepting the common wisdom to omniscience -- then realized that the world and humans are not really that simple and that common wisdom exists for valid reasons. Many of us also realize that common wisdom is merely a broad guide and is not definitive...
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.
Is the implication here that a Civil War and an Insurgency are mutually exclusive?
OK, not sure if that is helpful.
Nor am I...

Webster:
Belligerency: 1 : the state of being at war or in conflict; specifically : the status of a legally recognized belligerent state or nation.

What does that definition add to the clarity?

I submit it adds nothing. You Lawyers can get wrapped up in word games but no one else much cares. Most Lawyers know that there are varying definitions and vernacular uses of words but tend to strongly adhere to the definition that best serves them in presenting their case...

Specifically, groups of people who do not object to the governance of a State but who simply wish to seize power for themselves, crooks and / or various other non-state actors can precipitate an insurgency, engage in belligerent conduct (if not a de jure 'belligerency') or participate in a civil war -- or they can do both at the same time.

Over-define your 'rules' and you will inhibit your ability to respond to the actual problem. You continually carp that the US is still in the strait jacket of 'Cold War responses' yet propose replacing that strait jacket with your own design.
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.
Using that rationale, the Taliban were the government, they must not have provided good governance because the Northern Alliance objected, we helped the NA overthrow the Talibs and now they want their power, such as it was, back. Apparently Karzai is seen as unable to provide good governance, the Talibs are seen as unable to provide good governance, the US / NATO / ISAF are unlikely to be seen as capable of providing good governance -- thus there is no solution to the problem as you define it. Yet, I suspect a solution of sorts that satisfies no one will appear.

'Good Governance' as you use it appears to be a code for 'making everyone happy' (I know you have explained that's not the case but you keep getting back, indirectly, to that premise as you do in your last couple of sentences quoted below...). Not going to happen. Thus we all suffer from bad governance. The issue is, per Ed McMahon, "How bad is it?"
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.
Uh, yes, we can agree on that last. If we had good governance and made everyone happy, they wouldn't do that...

Like I said, the key is "How bad is it?" and as many have pointed out to you for some time, recognition of many subtle variations in the cause of insurgencies is necessary. There's never a one size fits all where humans are concerned...