Gotta alter the format for that second point. Re-format is for my use.
>American counterinsurgency practice rests on a number of assumptions:
(1) that the decisive effort is rarely military (although security is the essential prerequisite for success);
(2) that our efforts must be directed to the creation of local and national governmental structures that will serve their populations, and, over time,
(3) replace the efforts of foreign partners; that superior knowledge, and in particular, understanding of the ‘human terrain’ is essential; and that
(3a) we must have the patience to persevere in what will necessarily prove long struggles.
>Insurgency, however, can and will flourish in the
modern environment. The strains created by
-globalization,
-by the collapse of weak state structures,
-by demographic, environmental, and economic pressures,
-by the ease of cooperation among insurgent groups and criminals, and
-by the appearance of destructive radical ideologies, all augur a period in which free and moderate governance is at risk.
[Insurgency is the organized use of subversion and violence to seize, nullify or challenge political control of a region. As such, it is primarily a political struggle, in which //both sides use armed force to create space for their political, economic and influence activities// to be effective.
Insurgency is not always conducted by a single group with a centralized, military-style command structure, but may involve a complex matrix of different actors with various aims, loosely connected in dynamic and non-hierarchical networks.
To be successful, insurgencies require
-charismatic leadership,
-supporters,
-recruits,
-supplies,
-safe havens and
-funding (often from illicit activities).
They only need the active support of a few enabling individuals, but the //passive acquiescence// of a large proportion of the contested population will give a higher probability of success. _This is best achieved when the political cause of the insurgency has strong appeal_, manipulating religious, tribal or local identity to ^exploit common societal grievances or needs^.
Insurgents seek to gain control of populations through a combination of persuasion, subversion and coercion while using guerrilla tactics to offset the strengths of government security forces.
Their intent is usually to protract the struggle, exhaust the government and win sufficient popular support to FORCE CAPITULATION OR POLITICAL ACCOMODATION. Consequently, insurgencies evolve through a series of stages, though the progression and outcome will be different in almost every case.
Initial response?
The 2009 Guide, commissioned by the Obama Administration reads as a projection.
The Democrat Party is, herein, defined as an insurgency by the Obama administration!
The mad rush to gain acceptance for all sorts of aberrant behaviors in the ensuing 8 years under Obama now makes sense. Capitualation and accommodation was seen as “on the horizon” and all they needed was Hillary to come in and slam the door.
Problem was Hillary was NOT a charismatic leader.
But, they built up as one and...they never thought she would lose.
They believed their own press reports.
by demographic, environmental, and economic pressures,
Unlimited immigration from Mexico and muslims that don't acclimate to American customs and culture
-by the appearance of destructive radical ideologies, all augur a period in which free and moderate governance is at risk.
Commmon Core, Lbgtqlmnop crap, white crackers evil, America bad bad bad
-funding (often from illicit activities).
In our case funding from our own tax dollars
These are just a few examples...
Socialist Democrat insurgency exactly.