What I read in some of the rebuttals and questions to FM's "the insurgency is over" is that this is something of a semenatic game. Remember when Rummy ended the insurgency by, to the obvious discomfort and consternation of Peter Pace in one news conference in particular, changing their name to the "Enemies of the Legitimate Governement"? How is Must we ask for the core purpose of the conflicting parties and how is the government really legitimated and by whom to have an insurgency?

What I find ironic about this thread is that strict semantic parsing is coming from a proponent of 4GW, which relies on extremely loose interpretations of history. If we applied the same fuzzy definitions of "fourth generation warfare" to this debate over "insurgency" (and don't get me started on the evil spawns of 5GW and 6GW), what would we have? I'm betting "insurgency".