(laughing) you're killing me Mr. Owen, but at least you are consistent in how you go about doing it!

As I like to chide my new Brit friends (I've learned not to say "English" after a series of lectures delivered in Welsh, Scottish, and Irish accents...):

"The British Empire was disassembled one military victory at a time."

Feel free to quote me on that. Anytime one is commited to the preservation of an illigitimate government as their going in non-negotiable position, they are doomed to ultimate strategic defeat in addressing the insurgent populace, regardless of how often one achieves tactical victories in battles, or even campaigns.

It is closely related to the famous Vietnam War quote of "We had to destroy the village to save the village." How much of the populace must one kill in order to garner their support?

So, while I hear what you are saying, I will remain in the camp that recognizes the role of military operations in countering insurgency, but only as an inextremis force that comes in when the civil government failures have led to such a lack of control and secuity that they require assistance to bring the situation back within their span of control so that they can get on about the buisnes of addressing their shortcomings and providing good governance.

The military role in insurgency should be viewed the same as the military role in a natural disaster. Last in, first out. Excess capacity that is quickly brought in to curb the crisis, then just as quickly stood down to avoid excessive and inappropriate use of military power.

Viewing Insurgency as warfare, with an enemy that must be defeated, is IMO a very dangerous trap that is fallen in far too often, typically with poor or very temporary results. No one likes being suppressed by the government. Just ask my new Welsh, Irish, and Scottish friends.