Counterinsurgency has been an interest of mine since early in my college days, and the stubborn fixation on tactics over politics in the literature frustrated me. The puzzling contradiction between various on-the-ground tactics that specialists claim work so well and the obvious failure of one campaign after another was never satisfactorily explained; they just leave you with the impression that if only war planners committed to their pointy-hatted ideas more, then counterinsurgency would work.
This book took an intuition I've had about the subject and translated it into a theory and accompanying analysis of six counterinsurgency campaigns. The author demonstrates that, contrary to conventional wisdom, successful counterinsurgency requires the accommodation of elites and the brutal repression of civilians and insurgents alike. The counterinsurgent government is competing not for popular support, but for elite support, and the welfare of ordinary people is basically irrelevant; all that matters is that they be forcefully separated from insurgent territory so they cannot provide material support to it.
A common reaction to this theory is that it's heartless, that we should be concerned about liberal values and human rights. But this objection is normative/ The author's task is merely to describe the requirements for successful counterinsurgency, and if it is true that such a thing necessitates an intolerable moral cost, then the proper conclusion to draw is not to cling to a fantasy of benevolent liberal empire but rather to give up the counterinsurgent mission altogether.
The backlash against this kind of approach, I think, is motivated by a desire to rescue liberal imperialism, not to actually defeat insurgencies in a just manner. But the fact is that if we accept the responsibility of empire, we can be effective or civilized, but not both. The fantasy that the two can be reconciled, or more appropriately that the latter is a prerequisite for the former, is just that: a fantasy.