insurgency

Granted, the Civil rights movement was largely grass-roots, but it's not clear to me why a comparison to an insurgency is apt.

More like failed UN insurgency and failed propping up government the people don't want going on 20+ years.

The founding fathers used the word 'revolution' rather than 'insurgency,' but yes, that's sort of the point.

It's also worth mentioning that Malaysia was fighting off a Communist insurgency, though that was pretty much dead by 1960.

Manning didn't commit treason either unless he was trying to aid the insurgency, but there is no reason to believe that.

Sure, as I said, the insurgency (and the related events) is the one negative thing I can think of.

Even during the heights of Punjab insurgency the Army Chief was a Sikh and a majority of India's defence chiefs have been Sikhs.

That a moderately armed insurgency can hold against a very sophisticated military.

Add any brains, like we saw in Vietnam insurgency, to get a different scenario.

Otherwise the insurgency wouldn't have lasted a single month.

I went through a big counter insurgency phase about seven years ago.

Kashmir was relatively peaceful until the insurgency (financed and supported by Pakistan) started in '89, which also altered the ethnic makeup of the valley when Kashmiri Pandits were expelled.

Good for running drugs, or a revolution (or insurgency) though;-) On a serious note, I do see some real overlap between this military grade approach and "normal" use-cases.

Tell that to the Mujahideen, the Viet Cong, and the 2003- Iraqi Insurgency.

Highly recommend anyone interested checking out Insurgency.

See Counter-Strike, DayZ, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress, Insurgency, et al.