Every Insurgent is a civilian. But not every civilian is an insurgent.

Another case of where we are hamstrung by our poor lexicon.

In a place like Afghanistan, most of the "insurgents" are "civilians" for half of the year, and "insurgents" for the other half.

It is really more an issue of "innocent" and "liable" parties; and accomplice liability applies.

One really needs to apply of mix of criminal terminology and military prosecution to get closer a workable scheme in a COIN effort; trending to civil prosecution as the situation settles. None of this is directly related to the incident in Uruzgon, but our sloppy terminology is not helpful in general, and certainly not in a situation like this.

(As to the incident in Uruzgon, it is a tragedy, regardless of whose "facts" one applies. But currently the truth is being lost as "facts" are created or manipulated to support political positions. Patience.)