insurgencies

When you look at insurgencies you start asking, it feels horrible to say this, what a life is worth to a cause.

After all, civilian air traffic has overflown Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003 and 2001 respectively, even with long-running insurgencies in both nations.

Not to mention it would be a jungle war and likely resemble insurgencies.

The only reason the British didn't suffer a string of horribly embarrassing loses to insurgencies is because the British just gave up after Suez.

Stupid saber-rattling in Asia, insurgencies and wars in Africa, but nothing critical.

But then, insurgencies - in general - do a lot of things that don't make sense when taken purely from the perspective of their cause.

The RFC database is littered with cart-led insurgencies that went nowhere.

ETA: Thailand and the Phillipines also had fairly active Communist insurgencies, though it seems their governments were able to put them down without too much difficulty.

Presumably you are aware of the Iraq and Afghan insurgencies.

History is littered with insurgencies that won through losing.

Guerrilla insurgencies are very hard to beat.

Why didn't Japan and Germany have insurgencies?

It's even harder when five other identical "scrappy insurgencies" are competing on price in the low end of the market.

And the invasion of Iraq was never intended to "stifle insurgencies".

Prior to the invasion there were no significant "insurgencies" in Iraq.

S.'s misguided concept of "nation-building", made political reorganization (including insurgencies) possible.

Insurgencies, while caused for varying reasons and fought by different actors still utilize very similar tactics and often contain similar goals.

Insurgencies operate by leveraging small-scale, decentralized groups against a large, slow-moving beaurocracy.