As someone who's trained our foreign allies in COIN, I'm afraid we're looking at the beginnings of an American insurgency. All the ingredients are there. Let me explain. Please bear in mind there are different schools of thought re: an insurgency, like Kilcullen and Petraeus.

The most accepted definition of insurgency is an armed rebellion against a state generally recognized as a lawful authority (usually by UN). Those taking part in the uprising must be considered unlawful combatants. But what IS an unlawful combatant?

According to the Geneva Convention, an unlawful combatant is a belligerent who "does not have the right to engage in armed hostility." For example: if we were invaded by Russia tomorrow, every American citizen taking up arms is a lawful combatant according to the GC.

The reason being: we're sovereign citizens of a recognized nation being invaded by a hostile uniformed military. Under the Geneva Convention most COIN experts will agree we are considered lawful for taking up arms and defending our homeland.

Now those rioters on Wed? Under the definition of an insurgency that I agree with, yes. I consider them to be unlawful combatants. Notice the presence of multiple IEDs that had to be rendered safe and a truck full of long guns.

There are also pictures of individuals carrying handfuls of flex-ties, which are used to bind the hands of people taken into custody. There was obviously a plan to take US government legislators hostage, an act of terrorism.

In fact the entire act of storming the Capitol was an act of terrorism. There's no one solid definition of terrorism, but the most accepted one is: a violent act designed to instill fear in order for specific political reasons, or to bring about a political change.

Does a singular act mean we're dealing with an American insurgency? Not yet. While it was 100% an act of domestic terrorism, for it to be an insurgency it needs to be a continuous effort. Let's look at the DoD's definition of an insurgency.

The DoD defines an insurgency as "an organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict." Important: when the term "insurgency" is used by the state, the implication is ALWAYS that their grievance is illegitimate.

Which of course in this case is 100% true. An insurgency against the state is usually multifaceted and involves not only acts of terrorism and armed rebellion, but also subversion tactics and attempts to convince neutral parties that THEY are in the right.

What is going to be key is what happens in the days leading up to the inauguration of Joe Biden and after. Do I believe there are organized cells with the INTENT to foment rebellion? Yeah, I do. Will they? I dunno. I hope not. But what if they do?

When I was working COIN I generally aligned myself with David Kilcullen and his Three Pillars of Counterinsurgency, pictured here. Can you guess what the most important component of COIN is? Spoiler: it's information.

When I was in Afghanistan working COIN the most important part of my job was talking. That's the backbone of most COIN strategies. Getting the local populace to understand you and not a group like the Taliban have their best interests at heart. Keeping promises.

Think of it in this very simple term: if you can get the local populace to turn on the terrorist organization, you've already won the COIN portion of the fight.

However, that's COIN being implemented in a country we are occupying, not in our own country. How would we deal with an insurgency here? What sort of COIN strategies do you implement? Honestly, I'm not sure. We've never HAD an insurgency in America.

I don't know what's going to happen. My hope is: nothing. I'm counting on the inherent laziness of much of Trump's base. However, I do hope the incoming administration has a plan. Because they really, really need one.