Donald Stoker writes that, historically, most insurgencies are failures.

the real question in Iraq is not whether the insurgency can be defeated—it can be. The real question is whether the United States might have already missed its chance to snuff it out. The United States has failed to provide internal security for the Iraqi populace. The result is a climate of fear and insecurity in areas of the country overrun by insurgents, particularly in Baghdad. This undermines confidence in the elected Iraqi government and makes it difficult for it to assert its authority over insurgent-dominated areas. Clearing out the insurgents and reestablishing security will take time and a lot of manpower. Sectarian violence adds a bloody wrinkle. The United States and the Iraqi government have to deal with Sunni and Shia insurgencies, as well as the added complication of al Qaeda guerrillas.

But the strategy of “surging” troops could offer a rare chance for success—if the Pentagon and the White House learn from their past mistakes.

Iraq is not Vietnam, unless we foolishly let the left make it one. Again.

But the question not asked is what "defeating the insurgency" means. Right now is seems that to the Iraqis themselves insurgent = Sunni Arab, and to stop fighting is to die (anyway). What is the incentive for Sunnis to submit to a government apparently out for revenge? One thing not expliclity noted in the linked article is that most of those insugencies were defeated politically and economically, not militarily.

I think the wrong lesson is drawn from Tet as well; it was not only the capacity of the NVA and VC to hit U.S. troops; but that the NV were willing to sacrifice much more Vietnamese than the Americans were. At which point does burning the village to save it become pointless?

Of coruse to defeat the insurgency you need to know
their order of battle.

Simberg doesn't know it

Simberg isn't fighting them.

That is like argingin I need to know the electrial schematice of a Honda Civic in order to drive one.

Once again A J-H continues to plum the depths of mental retardation.

Arguing, Schematic, Plumb

drinking again puckett?

Yep, Pepsi. Are you comitting incest again or is you sister just running away from you for the exercise?

Keep plumbing thiose depths A J-H!