Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
....a form of insurgency that does not use violence to redistribute political power?


Only if you are stupid, unskilled and not practised in warfare.

Point one: Not all violence to redistribue political power is warfare. If a bunch of thugs in 1870s NYC prevents certain segments of the popualce from voting through intimidation and violence it is not warfare, though it meets your definition.

Similarly when a segment of a populace within a state employs intimidation and violence to shape politics I do not believe it is helpful to resolving the problem to classify that as warfare either.

Again, not to change your mind, only to be clear that my point is valid. Though I suspect that the Colin Powell leadership principle of "Never get so close to your position that when your position falls, your ego falls with it." is applicable here.

Point two is that most counterinsurgencies have unfolded this way. I don't believe those officers were stupid for thinking of insurgency as warfare, that is what they were trained to think and do. I just don't think it was the fast track to success, and most COIN "victories" won in such fashion of re-emerged over and over and over and over.. as the underlying causation was never addressed.