Reed,

It's for a graduate Security Studies/PolSci major. Thus, the terms I am using are those related to that academic field, and not the colloquial or subjective use of the terms which you seem to be confusing them with.

In the intl relations fields, the definitions of government types are generally accepted (one can always argue fringe cases) based on characteristics - not moral value. Hence, a democracy in this academic context is usually defined as a government freely elected by the people (either representative or direct), with high degrees of political, press, and economic freedom, and conducting regular elections of some sort, driving turnover. Also, the electorate must be inclusive to the population of the country.

There is a huge body of literature based on the emperical observation of the "Democratic Peace" - i.e. that from 1945 forward democracies have not gone to war with each other or generally initiated wars. The argument as to why (casual and structural arguments) has burned up more journals and books than I care to count. I tend to come down on the structuralist side, but that is neither here nor there.

I have uncovered an emperical observation concerning insurgencies, as separated from terrorist groups and civil war. For an my version of what constitutes a terrorist group vs. insurgency vs. civil war, see below:

Quote Originally Posted by Me
Why Insurgency?

Insurgency is a unique type of conflict encompassing a wide range of political, military, social, and economic factors. (Galula 1964) The term “insurgency” is defined by the United States Military as “An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict.” (Department of Defense 2008) The US Government Interagency definition is a little more expansive, saying, “Insurgency is a protracted political-military campaign conducted by an organized movement seeking to subvert or displace the government and completely or partially control the resources and/or population of a country through the use of force and alternative political organizations.” (Department of State 2007) The nature of insurgency is primarily political waged against a constituted government with an objective of regime change or secession. Insurgences often occur against the influence of a foreign occupying power or for regional/local autonomy.

From a combat standpoint, insurgency is distinctly guerilla in character, involving small bands of partisans operating within the population against the existing regime. It places a high value on political mobilization, drawing its fighters, supplies, intelligence, and refuge from the population of the involved country. (Trinquier 1964) Many insurgencies receive support from outside forces, whether states or non-state organizations. Because of their military weakness and lack of heavy forces, insurgencies seek to attack a regime’s weakness and avoid open conflict with organized military forces unless a clear military or political objective can be obtained. Victory is usually achieved through “wearing the enemy down” rather than through military conquest, or through coup-like action. Some insurgencies manage to field organized military forces in the end stages, escalating the conflict to civil war.

Insurgency is distinct from civil war. US Army Field Manual 100-20 provides the definition of civil war accepted by the United States military. Five criteria exist for a conflict meet the standard of civil war – control of territory, functioning government, foreign recognition, regular armed forces, and capability to engage in major military operations. (Department of the Army and Department of the Air Force 1990) Some academics are less demanding, defining civil war as, “Sustained military combat, primarily internal, resulting in at least 1,000 battle-deaths per year, pitting central government forces against an insurgent force capable of effective resistance, determined by the latter's ability to inflict upon the government forces at least 5 percent of the fatalities that the insurgents sustain.” (Henderson and Singer 2000). What is common between the two definitions is an emphasis on conflict internal to a state conducted largely with organized military forces. Because insurgents often organize in highly irregular groups and cells without clear chains of command, not all civil wars meet the criteria of insurgency. Insurgents usually do not completely control the terrain they operate in, and thus operate in a non-linear method against the established government. Therefore, civil wars are different in character from insurgencies, and require a different approach by the government to control. The distinction is imperfect, and there will always be overlap between civil war and insurgency.

Defining terrorism versus insurgencies is also important so as not to confuse all insurgencies with terrorist groups. Terrorism is described as, “… the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or the threat of violence the pursuit of political change.” (Hoffman 2006) Thus terrorism is primarily a tactic employed for political ends, and can be used in almost any dispute context. Terrorist groups in many cases may be insurgencies, or simply political organizations seeking recognition of their cause. Regardless of the objective, it is clear that while not all terrorist groups are insurgencies, most insurgencies use terrorism as a tactic against either the population or the government to achieve their political goals. (Hoffman 2006)
So while examining 89 cases of insurgencies identified by RAND (vice 600 terrorist groups in the same period), There were 26 insurgent victories. Of those 26, none were against democracies, even though 20 of the 89 cases were against democratic regimes.

The scholarly question becomes - why are democratic governments less likely to fall to insurgencies? The point of this thread was to see if any of the experts lurking or present here could demonstrate selection bias - cases I ignored which may discredit the empirical observation I am preparing to write the thesis on - a qualitative and quantitative examination of why this may be so. At this point, I don't know if it is luck, economics, governmental inclusion, military competence, etc. The point is that I don't have a conclusion, just an empirical observation and some data points.

That is what this thesis will test, and attempt to draw potential conclusions and inferences from. It will also hopefully provide avenues for others to research in more quantitative or qualitative detail.

So yes, this isn't a muddy boots thesis, but it may (or may not) have muddy boots implications. Remember, I'm writing for an academic committee.