Good question!Originally Posted by marct
One theme I'm getting from the discussion here is that people are classifying based on three rough criteria:
1. Classification based on how the conduct of the conflict - ie. guerrilla warfare vs "conventional" warfare.
2. Classification based on the actor's intent or "why they are fighting."
3. Classification based on the actor's type of organization- ei. nation states, tribes, etc.
One problem that makes the 30 years war difficult to classify is that today we base our interpretations of conflict around #3 - the nation state as the "standard" political entity. If two states are in conflict, then it is "war." If the conflict occurs within the borders of what we call a state, then it is civil war/insurgency. So, as long as we put the state at the top of the organizational hierarchy, I don't think we will be able to "fit" many types of conflict, including the 30-years war, into a war/civil war/insurgency construct.
Of course, Wilf will come in and remind us again that these classifications are arbitrary and largely useless because war is war.
Mike,
My point exactly - why can't South Vietnam be viewed as the "insurgents" against the North? This goes back to my earlier point that these classifications are often self-referential.
Bookmarks