A militarily victorious counterinsurgency can still lose due to non-battlefield factors

Evidence

From the French army’s point of view, their tragedy was that at various points they could see with agonising clarity (and not without reason) that they were winning the war militarily. But (not unlike the American commanders in Vietnam) it was not given them to perceive that, at the same time, their chances of winning the war politically and on the wider world stage were growing ever slimmer. — Horne, Alistair, A Savage War of Peace- Algeria 1954-1962, 1653 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Regroupment undeniably made life much more difficult for the A.L.N., but—as so often in the Algerian war—French policy found itself caught in the insoluble paradox of what was good militarily being bad politically, and vice versa. It was a pitfall into which, to some extent, the Americans were to stumble in South Vietnam. By the Battle of Algiers, Germaine Tillion concluded gloomily, “The implantation of the F.L.N. in the Algerian masses was too deep for any détente whatever to occur without the global agreement which it alone could give.” — Horne, Alistair, A Savage War of Peace- Algeria 1954-1962, 693 (#exemplifies, via linked claim)

Categorization

  • XREF: connects to: The army’s ambiguous pacification strategy left it unsuited to counterinsurgency; French tactical victories could not win a prolonged elusive insurgency; French counterinsurgency repeatedly traded military advantage for political costs — Horne, Alistair, A Savage War of Peace- Algeria 1954-1962, 693 (+20 more)

Broader Connections