It seems somehow to be appropriate that this week I read David McCullough's book "1776".   It was a reminder of how close the revolutionary war came to being over before it even started.   Not only did the rebel Army make some tactical errors, so did the British.   It pointed out that some of the battles were fought, not for any strategic advantage but to boost the sagging morale of the rebel troops and to gain support from the population.   The book mentioned that the rebel prisoners of war were subjected to  some extremely poor conditions and than many died from disease.   What the book didn't mention was the fate of the prisoners, both British and Hessian, that Washington's Army took.    Here was an Army that was barely able to take care of themselves,  i.e.  many without shoes, very few had uniforms.    What did they do with the prisoners they took?  

I was going to say that it came to my mind that in today's world, the rebel army may have been considered insurgents, but then I decided to look up the term 'insurgent'.   1.  a person who engages in unorganized outbreak against an established government or authority.  2. a member of a group, as a political party, who revolts against the policies of the group.   3.  of or characteristic of an insurgent or insurgents.

Do the so-called insurgents  in Iraq fit this definition?   I would say it depends on the definition of 'unorganized'.