This was covered in a few posts on the blog. Lots of comments on how there didn't seem to be enough cases, most dealt with the colonial period, they seemed to cherry-pick examples that backed-up 3-24, and critical of its premise that you can distill some principles from past examples- no matter how broad- and apply them to present/future insurgencies. We're looking for a template and think we've found it- so we're ignoring possible evidence to the contrary. And now a Rand study "proves" we are okay to ignore inconsistencies.