Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
I have read WILF's article and engaged with him on this topic extensively. We agree to disagree. My assessment is that he sees insurgency as war brought against a state by the insurgent, and that defeat of the insurgent through warfare is victory.
Your assessment is plain wrong.

Wilf says:

"Non-violent opposition is normal everyday politics, and not something that the Army should worry about, ..."

and

"An Army’s job is to kill or capture anyone who seeks to violently contest ... (the government's authority)"
Crush the armed insurrection and it all reverts to a political process (which the police should be able to manage).

I see insurgency as a civil emergency rooted in illegal political challenge internal to a state, in which the primary source of causation is government action and policy as perceived by the affected populace, that may, or may not elevate to a degree of violence that looks like warfare.
If it does not "elevate to a degree of violence" there is no need to use the military deal with those peacefully contesting the authority of the state.

So the bottom line that when the hurly-burly of everyday politics develops into an armed insurrection that is when effective military action is called for.

So quite honestly your apparent inability to understand the need for military action to quell an armed insurrection/insurgency is difficult to understand.