Too easy, I'll give you three. Sri Lanka's recent defeat of the LTTE, Saddam's defeat of the Kurds and Shia in 1991, and Assad's father defeated an Islamist insurgency in 1982.Bill, I need one example. Sure, insurgencies have been suppressed for a decade or two quite often by a government that remains uncoerced and set on sustaining its oppressive ways, but those insurgencies always come roaring back. Perhaps with different leaders, different organizational names or ideologies - but the insurgent is only the tip of the iceberg of the insurgency. The insurgency is a condition of grievance residing deep within a population.
For me legitimacy is a side issue that desired, but not always possible. Furthermore, winning has a legitimacy of its own, the side that can most effectively wield force. From a strategy perspective, I'm principally interested in achieving strategic objectives. There are few government leaders or governments willing to step aside because a segment of their constituency doesn't approve of them, and if they engage in armed conflict to replace that government they are now engaged in war. Both sides, or the multiple sides, have interests that they consider legitimate. Clearly it wasn't in Saddam's, Assad's, or the Government of Sri Lanka's interest to acquiesce to insurgent demands, all were seen as legitimate by segments of their population, so the legitimacy argument loses steam when we try to apply an U.S. melting pot onto other countries.
I'm not arguing whether it was morally right, or that peace would be sustained (is it ever?, we had a civil war after defeating the British), or anything other than the power that be achieved its objective and has legitimacy with a segment of its population. If you want to argue there is a better way, that may or may not be a valid argument. To dismiss that force works is simply wrong. To say it isn't the U.S. way of war (or COIN), is true (unless we need to suppress a separatist group like we did during the Civil War, where we used brutal force). The South didn't see the North as legitimate, instead they were coerced with force. A rough peace endured for decades after, and really the political objectives weren't achieved until well after the Civil Rights Movement, but the war (or insurgency) was won well before then.
Taking it a step further, outside actors like the U.S. have their interests, and they'll often intervene on the side that best represents their interests. This has been a historical truth that I don't see changing anytime soon.
Bookmarks