Since I've been arguing throughout this thread that the values-based definition of insurgency, which dominates Western doctrine and strategy, is a reflection of the colonialist worldview, I need to point out that there are two very different critiques of imperialism and this worldview.

The one from the left originated with Lenin, was refined by a number of Third World intellectuals and political leaders, picked up by the post Vietnam American left, and represented today by people like Noam Chomsky and Chalmers Johnson. It's essence is moral subjectivism: the imperial mindset is wrong because Western values are no better than non-Western ones.

The critique from the right is best typified today by the writing of Andrew Bacevich. It is based on the notion that America is ill suited for the imperial mission. That it has adverse effects on us like leading us toward a militarized foreign policy, and placing us in partnership with unsavory, even evil people.

My own position is the latter.