Insurgents vs Terrorists -- Is there a difference?

[jcustis]

I saw insurgency targets change from government, to religious, to security, to military, American Journalists, to tribal targets--this tells me that they are attacking for the purpose of instability and not strategic and/or political.

I regret that I did not see this same sort of transition across my time there. Perhaps Rob Thornton or RTK could weigh in with their observations. I saw the targets often become a target as a matter of timing (as they presented themselves), or often being attacked simultaneously.

I'm not sure I would classify former regime loyalists (FRLs) as lacking a political bent, or that they strive solely for instability. They may, for a limited time, seek instability for the purpose of reaching other goals, but I have a hard time seeing them perpetuating violence just because they can.

power, money, lawlessness, food, freedom from oppression, survival, etc., and once spawned, their aim is protractedness

I'd offer that freedom from oppression is itself an ideology (political), and the FRLs hold on to the belief that the best form of government for Iraq is neither Shi'a-dominated, coalition influenced, or Kurd-dominated. That drives them to attack these other formations, in addition to your more primal incidents, like the righting-or-wrongs, or honor attacks.