Although I'm not a Keegan fan I do agree that he brings up a definitional issue that is often ignored. Not that I want to debate symantics per se, but catagorizing the nature of violence leads to a better understandings of how to deal with it.

Having said that, my issue with the terms "civil war" and "insurgency" as they are POPULARLY understood and in relation to Iraq is that they are too general and do not lend themselves to understanding the nature of the violence (note I did not use the term war) in Iraq. I would hesitate to use the terms civil war or insurgency to describe those aspects of the violence in Iraq that involves inter-tribal, ethnic, or religious groups, or that is due to the so-called "foreign fighters"

The term civil war and insurgency imply a polticial aspect that does not exist within the context of most of the violence in Iraq. Which is of course what adds to the confusion.