Posted by Infanteer,

When we keep the definition focused on armed resistance against the state (which we know is only part of spectrum of political opposition to governance) we keep it rooted on a portion most of us of a professional stake in.

When we let "insurgency" expand to the point where it takes up non-violent opposition to governance and beyond - and likewise consider counterinsurgency to be simply "good governance" - it ceases being useful. "Counterinsurgency" and "good governance" should not be confused; counterinsurgency doesn't always require good governance and good goverance doesn't always require counterinsurgency.
I agree with you for the most part, but non-violent movements have been part of many insurgencies (although I hate the term you can call it another line of operation). Sometimes they didn't know they were tools of the insurgents, but it was basically active PSYOP to create the perception that the government was illegimate to create doubt and hopefully reduce external support to the government. Especially effective if the government overreacts to these movements.

Bob is taking considerable liberty with definitions, but I think it is helpful. Are we going to develop strategy and doctrine for a particular set of tactics (insurgency), or are we going to develop a strategy that clearly identifies the desired strategic end state regardless of the tactics being employed, and then employ the talent of the Whole of Government as appropriate to achieve our objectives?

I'm not sold on Bob's expansion of the term insurgency and counterinsurgency, but on the other hand I'm beginning to see less utility for those terms to begin with.