I recognize the difference in your approach from the what I would call the "reformist" (population-centric) approach - no word-coining on my part; I ripped off
Eqbal Ahmad.
So, the question is: What do you do, given the needs of the populace (and including in the rights to self-determination and to good governance), where the incumbant government cannot or will not meet those needs ?[*]
This question posits that the existing insurgency against the incumbant government is also unacceptable. Historically, we could pick any number of Latin-American countries in the past century - with a number of US interventions. That is, oligarchs ruling over very poor and exploited populations, with insurgencies too radical for our taste as well.
Do you simply pack up your bags and leave; or do you engineer a "third way" movement - perhaps, not that far from the radical insurgents, but expressing the needs of the populace ?
Further posit that the NCAs have given COL Jones complete freedom of action to do what he thinks is right.
----------------------------
[*] Also posited is that the incumbant government has no ears to hear the excellent briefings of COL Jones, who is therefore in the same shoes as Paul of Acts.
PS: Upon reflection, you can answer this in two parts, using two roles: (1) COL Jones, USASF - not indigenous (so, not "his fight"); and (2) COL Jones, indigenous military, who has the appropriate group of "misfits", military and civilian, to engineer a "third way" (so, it is "his fight").
Bookmarks