I've been doing some research on the Chechen conflict as preparation for a paper on high value targeting and counterinsurgency that I'm presenting to the RAND Insurgency Board next month. I noted that by 2007, a combination of offensive actions and political reform/reconstruction had so beaten the movement down that it was basically a combination of terrorism and banditry.

It struck me how common that pattern is. U.S. (and U.K.) doctrine and strategy posit "peace"--the absence or near-absence of organized violence--as the end state in counterinsurgency. Is this feasible? Should we instead have doctrine and strategy that posits an end state where the insurgency cannot seize power or exercise total control over significant parts of the country, but where terrorism and banditry are still relatively common? I know that's not desirable, but is it the most realistic definition of success?