How Insurgencies End

[Dayuhan]

And while this is occuring, the insurgent out working among the populace; targeting manifestations of the squabbling COIN force (the HN government at all levels, civil and security; their puppet master external FID forces, civil and military, et. al.) wherever they are most easily and visibly affected; cajoling and coercing support from the populace as necessary; all the while working to build perceptions of their own legitimacy, to provide justice, to provide respect to the disrespected (your tribe is excluded from success under this government? Join the Taliban and be somebody!); addressing feelings of hopelessness (you don't have a vote that counts? here, take this IED, or this ICOM radio, or this AK and "vote" with it and be heard!).

One of our weaknesses in these fights is often our tendency to focus on the insurgent organization, their driving ideology and their command structure. The insurgents, on the other hand, are acutely aware of and able to gain leverage from local grievances that we often overlook.

In my neck of the woods, when the new People's Army wants to move into an area, they don't come in preaching Communism - that would be pretty pointless. They focus on local grievances and local issues, which generally proliferate in poorly governed countries, and use those as a lever to gain the local support and recruit the troops that they need.

Resolving those local issues will not convert the core ideologues. It can, however, isolate them from their sources of support, remove their recruitment leverage, and whittle them down to a force that is either manageable or will simply die off for want of influence. The local grievances may not be the ideological core of the insurgency, but they are what allows the insurgency to spread and survive.

No, insurgencies don't end when the insurgent wants them to Outlaw, they end when the populace in the main feels that governance is good.

Agreed, but I'd substitute "adequate" for "good". People are actually fairly tolerant of mediocre governance (otherwise the whole world would be rebelling) and generally have to be pushed pretty hard before they take up arms and rebel. A bit of hope, a possibility for improvement, any sign that there's a chance things will work out without a fight, people can manage. Push their back up to and through the wall, they will fight back. As long as people feel that governance is theirs, not someone else's, is not a direct threat to them, and that there's some hope for improvement, they aren't that likely to engage in armed resistance.

In many areas ownership of governance is as or more important than quality: people's tolerance for bad governance is a lot higher when they feel that the government in question is theirs. That's something intervening powers often overlook.