Yes, though the days when "self-determination" meant the choice between submit and live or resist and die are long behind us (not to say that when the current veneer of civilization is adequately disrupted they won't be back, I suspect they will, and in many corners of the world are); we tend to take this muddy ground of relying on the military for decisive effect, when under our current legal constructs decisive effect can no longer be produced by the military. We stand with a foot in each camp, so to speak, in terms of how we understand and address these instances of popular discontent with governance within a state.

My recommendation is that the onus be clearly, and completely sat upon the lap of civil leadership. That it is the failures of civil government that allows the populace to move up the curve out of phase 0 "peace" into phase 1 "insurgency"; and that the role of the military is to bring in additional capacity to assist the civil govenrment establish a degree of security while the assess and address their inadequacies; and that once the military has helped get the populace back to the phase 0 box (a mix of reducing violence and improving governance required) its job is largely done.

Until civil governments embrace that a populace is like a yard, and that governance much like gardening, requires constant attention, with an eye both to the immediate and long-term care required, to keep it vibrant and healty and orderly. If you just cut the grass once a month and call it good, you will reap what you sow...

The depletion of soil and the growth of weeds are as natural as the emergence of insurgency. To simply attack the symptoms of ones failures is IMO negligence.