Arthur Herman draws on the modern history of counter-insurgency warfare to explain why the key to victory lies, quite literally, in the future.
Galula's third lesson was that the counterinsurgency must project a sense of inevitable victory. The local populace had to see the military and civilian authority as the ultimate winner. For that, native troops were essential. In counterinsurgency terms, they were more than just auxiliaries in the fight; they were also signposts of the future ...
Do such dynamics basically ensure that these conflicts are lost on the Western domestic front (where the centre of hyperstitional fatality lies)?