If that was an apology I accept it. If it wasn't an apology I admit I have to admire your spirit.
~~
To return to the point in hand, the question of whether we are winning or losing is a complex one. If I was excessively bullish in tone it is because there are two ways we can lose this war. the one is the obvious way of taking excessive casualties in the field - by which I mean so many men that our economic and social infrasturcutre is devastated. Of this there seems little danger. The other is that we are persuaded by doomsayers that we cannot win and quit. Of this there seems a very great danger, repeated to me personally by officers, NCOs, and soldiers who have recently left the forces. I cannot cite these sources for obvious reasons, and can only suggest you hunt some up for yourself. It's rarely an unpleasant experience.
Being stuck in a chair, and facing removal from the Army I am - I think understandably - keen to do whatever I can. This includes correcting misapprehensions which could lead to defeat. Obviously I did a lousy job since I merely pissed you off! if that is an apology I hope you will accept it.
However, I DO maintain that your thesis is incorrect. Malaysia and Northern Ireland are evidence that the British Army can win a counter-insurgency campaign _as part of the tripartite solution I already described_. That is security, development, and political spark. For a full description, read Low Intensity Operations, by Frank Kitson. Although i should stress that teh bok is quite old and doesn't go the whole hog.
Having said that, the insurgent has a far far easier time of it, and that is why they frequently succeed. If by succeed one means destroy their own country and debase their own integrity by perpetration of murder and atrocity on their own people.