Do occupations work?

[Falstaff]

Just as an aside, I had a girlfriend from the East(Berlin), she was about 10 when the wall came down, so did'ent really have much knowlage of the political situation. But her parents were really interesting to talk too, they were real live communists, or were anyway, they said that they knew the system was sick, but that they believed it could be fixed. After the GDR was abolished they felt that they had been lied to by the FDR, mainly because they thought that things were never that bad in the east and it could be preserved in some way, a lot of there friends felt the same kind of attachment to the GDR.

Yeah, I'm afraid that's a common view by many (mostly older) people over here, esp. those who liked the communist idea. Objective research says it's wrong however. Many communist believers now help themselves by claiming there is the still perfect ideal communism and the "real existing communism" that was messed up by human nature. Would make me think... Somehow you have to justify your life, don't you? How often do you hear old people say "Not everything was bad under Hitler, e.g. he built the autobahn". Justify yourself, that is.

They also felt that the GDR had done a lot better job of denazisfacation than the West, they were a lot less guilty about what had happened during the war than most west germans I meet too.

That's something that has its roots in that the west was considered as a imperialistic regime which alone inherited the Nazi legacy, as the GDR by definition was anti-fascistic. This is the very same reason why denazification and working up didn't take place. By definition there were no Nazis and by adopting communism the best of all work ups was done. See my point?

My girlfriend was also (and her Mum) really into equality of the sexes and feminisim, which they said was tauth like a subject in school. I used to pretend to be sexist just to drive her crazy!

Well, I am sexist but my girlfriend believes I'm pretending

 

[Waylander]

Muhahahahaha.

Me and my relatives are also from east germany and I also have the feeling that this guilt problem we have nowadays is more present in the west but I also feel that the youth (apart from the more radical lefties) has much less problems with it than previous generations.

 

[merocaine]

I agree with everything you said, but at the sametimes the bitterness of her parents was all to real, the Germany of there childhood is gone forever, and to boot they are told that is was a lie to begin with, that cant be easy for anyone to take.
Have you seen "Goodbye Lenin" i guess there were a lot of people like that in the east when the wall came down...

In Ireland (the republic that is) there was whole scale emigration by the prodestant population after independence, the Ireland they knew and loved was gone forever, they could not see any future for themselves in an Independent Ireland. Althought you did'ent have the same kind of thing happen in the East, there must have been a wide spread sence of disilliousionment after the joy of reunion had pasted.

Occupations usually have deep and long lasting effects that only become apparent as time goes on. Ireland is still coming to terms with its self, it is only now that we are really being self critical, our self esteem has recovered enough to allow it.
Has the Germany really recovered from the effects of western occupation?
It still seems to have an aversion to acting alone on the world stage....

 

[Waylander]

That's defenitely true. Nothing scares our politicians (and to a lesser degree our population) more than acting like a real sovereign nation with own interestens and obligations (apart from economic topics).

As to older east german people being desillusioned about the end of the GDR.

My grandfather was in a relatively high position in the army and also had some civil tasks and everytime he meets his old friends (most of them were also part of the government or army) I just can shake my head about how they make everything of the past shiny while in the same time negotiating everything bad which happened in the GDR.

 

[Falstaff]

In Ireland (the republic that is) there was whole scale emigration by the prodestant population after independence, the Ireland they knew and loved was gone forever, they could not see any future for themselves in an Independent Ireland. Althought you did'ent have the same kind of thing happen in the East, there must have been a wide spread sence of disilliousionment after the joy of reunion had pasted.

Yes, true. As you and Waylander said, the people believed in something, were taught in school about it, perhaps even were successful within the system- and all of a sudden all that's nothing or even a bad thing. And imagine suddenly you learn about crimes that your government did...

How's it going in Ireland today? The news here mostly cover Northern Ireland only, so no idea what you guys are up to?

(and can I please have one of the Corr-sisters, please?)

Occupations usually have deep and long lasting effects that only become apparent as time goes on. Ireland is still coming to terms with its self, it is only now that we are really being self critical, our self esteem has recovered enough to allow it.
Has the Germany really recovered from the effects of western occupation?
It still seems to have an aversion to acting alone on the world stage....

Although I agree to you I think that in the case of Germany we didn't need recovery from the occupation so much (at least in the west) but from WW2 istself, the Nazi regime and the communist regime in the east.
Most people don't even remember that it was an occupation technically. If you'd ask young people if there was an occupation they'd say no, I think.

 

[merocaine]

Things are pretty good, there was never any political trouble in the Republic (apart from a handful of incidents over the years).

Here is an example of the way the british occupation, if you can even call it that since they were here that long, still effects the Republic of Ireland.

Croke park is Irelands National Sports Stadium, but since independence only Gaelic games have been played there, British Games like football and Rugby and cricket have been banned.
This year for the first time Rugby was being played at Croke park, big deal you might say, but Ireland were going to be playing England, this ment that the English National Anthum, "God Save The Queen" was going to sung in Croke Park!
This triggered a bout of national soul searching, debate, arguements in the pub ect. In the end it all passed of in a respectfull silence, so we all patted our selves on the back, proud that we had finally come to terms with our Colonial past!

 

[Rich]

Although I agree to you I think that in the case of Germany we didn't need recovery from the occupation so much (at least in the west) but from WW2 istself, the Nazi regime and the communist regime in the east.
Most people don't even remember that it was an occupation technically. If you'd ask young people if there was an occupation they'd say no, I think.

We in the west had a remarkable occupation strategy for West Germany after WW-ll. We poured countless billions of our wealth into rebuilding the place and gave them the gift of Democracy that allowed Germany to become the remarkable nation it is today.

The problem with that is one of apples and oranges. Its irrational to think such a strategy will work in other places just because it worked in Germany. Germany did, after all, have a history of recent Democratic Political reality which made it far easier to build Democratic machinery after the war.

The Germans themselves are westerners with strong religious and historical ties to the nations doing the occupying. And they are, after all, Germans. I never met a lazy one or a stupid one and if anyone could recover from such a travesty then they could, and of course did.

Compare all that to todays Iraq? There really isnt one thing that compares other then the overall strategy, which BTW is failing. The biggest difference is cultural mistrust and miscommunication. We had far more in common with the Germans then we do with the Iraqis.

When we went in I thought we were going to keep the Iraqi Goverment and Military/Police apparatus intact, "obviously without the worst scoundrels still in power". When I saw an otherwise law abiding people rampaging and looting thru the streets thats when I knew we had a problem.

 

[guest]

Trail of thoughts

Occupation because...

1) Two conflicting groups in Country B, so Country A decided to step in to take one side to get rid of the other, and help formation of a new governmental structure, and expected future diplomacy with some saying in their gov, which will benefit the Country A ecomonically in the future.

2) Two conflicting groups in Country B, so Country A decided to step in to take one side to get rid of the other, and help formation of a new governmental structure, so that country A wil gain ability and reason to place military base of Country A in Country B because countries around country B have security threats to Country A.

3) Two conflicting groups in Country B, so Country A decided to step in to take one side to get rid of the other, and help formation of a new governmental structure, so that Country A will gain ability and reason to place their military bases of Country A in Country B as well as countries around country B for the reason to keep control over the conflicting group they got rid of. Patrol in a way, so that country A can gain ecomonic benefit in exchange with offerring the protection to Country B as well as other countries.

Those are the reason I was thinking when a country occupies another country. Are there any other reason/motivation to one country occupies another country? I could not think of any other reasons other than for monetary benefit that can be expected in the future from the country they occupy and for its own security. I am still thinking.

 

[Incognito129]

We in the west had a remarkable occupation strategy for West Germany after WW-ll. We poured countless billions of our wealth into rebuilding the place and gave them the gift of Democracy that allowed Germany to become the remarkable nation it is today.

The problem with that is one of apples and oranges. Its irrational to think such a strategy will work in other places just because it worked in Germany. Germany did, after all, have a history of recent Democratic Political reality which made it far easier to build Democratic machinery after the war.

The Germans themselves are westerners with strong religious and historical ties to the nations doing the occupying. And they are, after all, Germans. I never met a lazy one or a stupid one and if anyone could recover from such a travesty then they could, and of course did.

Compare all that to todays Iraq? There really isnt one thing that compares other then the overall strategy, which BTW is failing. The biggest difference is cultural mistrust and miscommunication. We had far more in common with the Germans then we do with the Iraqis.

When we went in I thought we were going to keep the Iraqi Goverment and Military/Police apparatus intact, "obviously without the worst scoundrels still in power". When I saw an otherwise law abiding people rampaging and looting thru the streets thats when I knew we had a problem.

Germany and Iraq are not comparable. They just dont compare in any way. There are difference forces pushing, different motives, different rewards for each occupation.

A major factor of Iraq is Israel and their AIPAC lobby group.

Israel is one where occupation is suceeding mostly due to the small and manageable population.

 

[metro]

Germany and Iraq are not comparable. They just dont compare in any way. There are difference forces pushing, different motives, different rewards for each occupation.

A major factor of Iraq is Israel and their AIPAC lobby group.

Israel is one where occupation is suceeding mostly due to the small and manageable population.

-I agree that Germany and Iraq are difficult to compare.

-After spending time looking into it, I'm pretty sure I don't see, "A major factor of Iraq is Israel and their AIPAC lobby group." If you have some good evidence to back the statement, I would definitely like to check it out (Seriously, I'm interested in, why? Whether it's an opinion or otherwise--honestly, no worries regarding me "taking offense," i just like trying to understand).

-I'm don't quite agree with your last sentence either. I don't know how comparable Israel's situation is today to that of post WWII Germany (different neighborhood for one) and I'm not sure what is being used as the metric to determine what "succeeding..." means. I don't think the size of the population has a great deal to do with much. In this way I think the total population of the countries (including US) surrounding/occupying Germany after WWII was a larger ratio than the number of Israelis and a, "small and manageable population."

In Iraq, we do face a large population and there's know doubt that this if a significant factor today. But I also think everything from culture, history, neighbors, interests, poor initial "planning"/tactics, media and support back home and around the world etc., have all been important and difficult factors. Though today, there are some people saying things are seemingly improving in Iraq.
Re: Israel, they've lived in the region among the people for a while, and it is a country, so there isn't a "just come back home" option like some people think we (US) simply have. I can tell you with confidence that neither Israel, the Palestinians, nor anyone else in the area will say that they get the benefit of united international support.
JMHO

 

[riksavage]

Whether occupations work can be subjective. Look at the Northern Ireland scenario; you will get two completely different views depending on whether you speak to a Catholic or Protestant?

Also look at the early European occupation of North America, Australia and New Zealand respectively. Certain radical elements of native American Indians, Aboriginals and Maori still consider this to be an illegal occupation today. However, the total cultural, military and numerical domination by non-native ethnic groups altered demographics to the point where the original occupants were completely overwhelmed or in many cases almost annihilated (Aboriginals in Tasmania) rendering the term occupation as almost irrelevant.

A truly successful occupation completely dilutes and usurps the host population. If the first white settlers to Southern Africa had driven the black population out and replaced it with European settlers instead of enslaving the native population we may have ended up with another Australia, New Zealnd or USA!

 

[PullerRommel]

I remember Machiavelli once said "If a ruler does not raze the city conquered then he deserves to be killed"

Also wasnt one of the major mess-ups in Iraq was immediately taking out all Baathist heads of govt

 

[merocaine]

I remember Machiavelli once said "If a ruler does not raze the city conquered then he deserves to be killed"

Also wasnt one of the major mess-ups in Iraq was immediately taking out all Baathist heads of govt

Machiavelli said a lot of things.

But in this case he was referring to treatment which should be metted out to republics, he was'ent to keen on democrats yeah see, them being used to freedom were less lightly to allow themselves to be lorded over by a prince.

A country ruled by an autocrat like Iraq, being used to the whip should'ent pose too many problems. A bit of the rough stuff early on, reward the right people, and the rest should fall into line.

Like a lot of pen pushers he was strong on theory but he had a few problems with reality.

 

[FutureTank]

purpose and method

Its funny to read posts here. I was rally looking for a thread that offers solutions in Afghanistan and now Kurdistan, but am really amazed here.

Occupation is a military term. It can be applied in tactical, operational and strategic scopes of warfare.

Most modern states are occupiers, and long term at that. France had over time occupied much of what used to be Roman Gaul. Kievan Rus occupied what used to be a whole lot of independent Slavic states. China is so called because the Chin occupied the other 20 or so ethnic groups, and Hindus in Delhi took the opportunity to occupy other kingdoms after British abandoned the occupation, including a Tamil South. Finally occupation is the modus operandi of Islamic doctrine since its inception, and did so in North Africa, Iberia, Mesopotamia, India, and attempted elsewhere. Eventualy much of it was reoccupied by the Ottomans.

Just as tactical occupation can refer to a passing, temporary or permanent mission of a unit, so too operational and strategic occupation is similarly executed. The Chinese tried to permanently occupy a territory delineated by one of the structures that can be seen from space, and the Maginot line was also build to produce strategic occupation to preserve Alsace-Lorraine as a French procession. The old Soviet-Chinese border is occupied by the last of Fortified Region units that delineate the border that used to be disputed by the above-mentioned Chinese that are not happy with the Wall any more.

Turning to the current NATO problem in Afghanistan, it is only a lack of education in military history and a greater lack of imagination that prevents complete and quick victory over Taliban. All these NATO officers raised on the Napoleonic ideal of manoeuvre and shock have never thought past the last day of the one-week Cold War scenarios and are subsequently out of their depth in Afghanistan. And this despite MANY clues as to what is required practically all over the place.

And yet solution is simple, relatively easily implemented, and does not require significant increases in personnel. The only question is - how long does NATO want to be in Afghanistan for? I would say that they want out as soon as possible, so why don't they THINK?!

Now some notes on what was said earlier.
Romans never intended to occupy Carthage.
It is the prerogative of the occupier to make the position being occupied as strong as possible. From this perspective Soviet Union had every right to do whatever it deemed necessary in what became East Germany, and the rest of Warsaw Pact countries.
Israel's occupation of of its territory is possibly the oldest record of such an undertaking. Not only did the nation of Israel occupy the land between Aza (Gaza) and Lebanon, but also it occupied what is now Jordan. It was later itself conquered several times, but only occupied by the Romans for a relatively short time (few Romans wanted to live there). Then it was occupied by Arabs emerging under the banner of Islam, and later still by the Ottoman Turks who gave way to the British and French. None of these occupiers took the usual measures of creating permanent occupation through settlement.

The only way to ensure permanent occupation, as it says in the Bible, is to have permanent settlements. People tend to fight for their land since it ultimately defines them for who they are. I give you the Kurds, the Basque, the Croats, and the Tamil.
The only way to end such conflicts is either to give up territory, or give up power.

Ultimately occupiers want or expect some change the locals may not be enthusiastic about. Usually it involves change of lifestyle through adoptation to a new culture.

Those being occupied can combat this by converting the occupiers to one's own culture to prevent this change. Latins, in conquering the Etruscan states were subsumed in their culture until they lost any notion of who they were for the most part despite the greatness of Rome.
'Vikings' and 'Normans', that is Scandinavians and Franks, 'conquered' the British Celts, and yet completely succumbed to their culture eventually. Franks also occupied the Roman Gaul, but their language today is ranked with the Romance languages, and their 'spirit' is Gallic. Northern Italy was occupied by the Germanic tribes, Ligurians and Lombards among them, but which of them will deny being Italian today? Mongols and Manchus are already mentioned, but where are they now?

Some cultures of occupation were homicidal of course. The Viet eradicated the Champa in one of the more recent examples that preceded the German solution for the Jews. The Romans tried to exterminate the Celts of Iberia. The Picts were exterminated by the invading Scots. Apparently the Aztec sacrificed whole conquered tribes to their gods. The Zulu did something similar in their rise to power.

Now, since Americans and Europeans are not rushing to settle in either Iraq or Afghanistan, it seem to me their military leaders ought to think of more creative tactical and operational methods in securing the countries so that civilian administrations can bring stability in relative security.

 

[funtz]

Well there are many ways to look at it, quoting you here

and Hindus in Delhi took the opportunity to occupy other kingdoms after British abandoned the occupation, including a Tamil South.
The only way to ensure permanent occupation, as it says in the Bible, is to have permanent settlements. People tend to fight for their land since it ultimately defines them for who they are. I give you the Kurds, the Basque, the Croats, and the Tamil.
The only way to end such conflicts is either to give up territory, or give up power.

The process of independence in India was at very complex time, preceded by equally complex history of Independence struggle, at the time of independence there were several factors in what is now India,
The congress had credible leadership and infrastructure (party workers-party offices) in most of the populous cities of pre independent India.
The form of governance was centered around the process of providing political instruments to all major sections of the population.

The power of the so called old block of leaders (Kings) was reduced to a degree (being the supporters of the Raj) which ensured that they never had any significant control over the people or the Military.

And the most important of all, a strong opposition was created as soon as the process of democratic governance started.

Of course the fault line of such a nation was huge, big enough for many (including Indians) to doubt the very existence of a nation with such huge cultural divisions, Doubts that continue to this day, with active separatist/independence struggles.

The point behind me typing on and on about this is that there is not just a single solution to a set problem.

Even in a nation like Afghanistan or Iraq (places where people have not seen eye to eye for much longer time then I have been on this earth), the idea of providing political tools to the people/groups for the resolution of those differences is not lost, it is more difficult and will take more time, and even if a success rate is observed some opposition will no doubt exist, however that resistance/opposition can be reduced to manageable levels with out a general need for integration or cultural manipulation with the larger picture, a sort of agreement to disagree as they say.

Obviously it will not happen if the advantages of perusing political solutions is denied to the people, and that should be the goal for the insurgents/terrorists/separatists, to deny/sabotage/disrupt the political process, something which is not unique to Iraq or Afghanistan.
May be the military forces can eventually provide an environment peaceful enough for the people to be willing to make the required sacrifices that will follow, once that is done will the hard part of finding a political solution can start.

Easier said than done.
The military operations expenditure might be more than the aid+rebuilding-infrastructure expenditure in these places.
This opinion of mine is purely based on the limited international TV news i have seen about the situation.
If this is true it signifies a stategy on the part of the NATO and USA which is bound to miss/delay the goal of a stable Afghanistan (if that is a goal).

 

[FutureTank]

Well there are many ways to look at it, quoting you here

The process of independence in India was at very complex time, preceded by equally complex history of Independence struggle, at the time of independence there were several factors in what is now India,
The congress had credible leadership and infrastructure (party workers-party offices) in most of the populous cities of pre independent India.
The form of governance was centered around the process of providing political instruments to all major sections of the population.

The power of the so called old block of leaders (Kings) was reduced to a degree (being the supporters of the Raj) which ensured that they never had any significant control over the people or the Military.

And the most important of all, a strong opposition was created as soon as the process of democratic governance started.

Of course the fault line of such a nation was huge, big enough for many (including Indians) to doubt the very existence of a nation with such huge cultural divisions, Doubts that continue to this day, with active separatist/independence struggles.

The point behind me typing on and on about this is that there is not just a single solution to a set problem.

Even in a nation like Afghanistan or Iraq (places where people have not seen eye to eye for much longer time then I have been on this earth), the idea of providing political tools to the people for the resolution of those differences is not lost, it is more difficult and will take more time, and even if a success rate is observed some opposition will no doubt exist, however that resistance/opposition can be reduced to manageable levels with out a general need for integration or cultural manipulation with the larger picture, a sort of agreement to disagree as they say.
Well, easier said than done.

India was created by far from democratic methods. Mostly it was party politics. These failed to prevent disintegration of British India into four states, and the wars that followed between the Islamic and Hindu populations, never mind the massive forced resettlements.
India is still not a democracy though they like to advertise themselves as such. The culture of India is far too susceptible to corruption. Many scandals in Indian politics are never heard of in the wider World.

Of course you are right, and there is no single solution that applies to every case. It takes some 3-4 generations (60-80 years) to change society. I don't know why no one had seen this in Pentagon or the White House, but that is what it would take to create a democratic Iraq...if Iraqis want to.
Afghanistan is an even harder case.

However, I don't want to get into politics here for fear of Mods

Militarily speaking solutions are easier because the military professional is not dealing with a disorganised mass of the general population but with an organisation that, like his own, has missions and objectives.

What I don't understand is what happened to NATO command leadership. Europeans are arguably the most successful culture in conflict management, and yet they are failing in what should be a fairly straight forward campaign...straight out of the history books.

 

[tethoma]

Good Post FutureTank

I read through some of the posted replys, many using modern day Iraq and Afghanistan as lead-in responses. From reading, the title obviously tried to draw attention to those areas to spark debate.

FutureTank, your post hit-home some historical points not mentioned in previous post and hopefully expanded some of our thinking.

To sum up my view, I think modern-day occupation can work if you dedicate the proper sized force and plan for the many things that could go wrong.

Using the example of Iraq, 1) The Intel assessment on civilian reaction to an occupying force was way off. 2) The U.S. did not dedicate the right sized force 3) There was no plan for locking down the border, mainly the known transportation routes of weapons coming out of Syria and Iran. 4) Ground forces where trained to fight force-on-force, not guerilla warfare - can you say Somalia?

I could hit on some of the specifics of Afghanistan, but will hold my tougue. Thanks for your insight. TET out

 

[FutureTank]

I read through some of the posted replys, many using modern day Iraq and Afghanistan as lead-in responses. From reading, the title obviously tried to draw attention to those areas to spark debate.

FutureTank, your post hit-home some historical points not mentioned in previous post and hopefully expanded some of our thinking.

To sum up my view, I think modern-day occupation can work if you dedicate the proper sized force and plan for the many things that could go wrong.

Using the example of Iraq, 1) The Intel assessment on civilian reaction to an occupying force was way off. 2) The U.S. did not dedicate the right sized force 3) There was no plan for locking down the border, mainly the known transportation routes of weapons coming out of Syria and Iran. 4) Ground forces where trained to fight force-on-force, not guerilla warfare - can you say Somalia?

I could hit on some of the specifics of Afghanistan, but will hold my tougue. Thanks for your insight. TET out

Thank you Tet (?)
Unlike many I think that the campaigns are far from lost, and even less then most I don't think more troops in either country is a solution. Usually it just provides a greater number of targets.

 

[funtz]

India was created by far from democratic methods. Mostly it was party politics. These failed to prevent disintegration of British India into four states, and the wars that followed between the Islamic and Hindu populations, never mind the massive forced resettlements.
India is still not a democracy though they like to advertise themselves as such. The culture of India is far too susceptible to corruption. Many scandals in Indian politics are never heard of in the wider World.

Of course you are right, and there is no single solution that applies to every case. It takes some 3-4 generations (60-80 years) to change society. I don't know why no one had seen this in Pentagon or the White House, but that is what it would take to create a democratic Iraq...if Iraqis want to.
Afghanistan is an even harder case.

However, I don't want to get into politics here for fear of Mods

Militarily speaking solutions are easier because the military professional is not dealing with a disorganised mass of the general population but with an organisation that, like his own, has missions and objectives.

What I don't understand is what happened to NATO command leadership. Europeans are arguably the most successful culture in conflict management, and yet they are failing in what should be a fairly straight forward campaign...straight out of the history books.

Interesting the way you said
"However, I don't want to get into politics here for fear of Mods"
after going neck deep into it.
I like this way.
Yes as much as i will like to retort to your comments on India (which i find offensive and uninformed) i too will not like to waste the space reserved for military discussion for it.
as i said an agreement to disagree in a civilised way.
And will not like to send somebody a PM with my opinions as that defies the reason for being on a discussion board.

Again the military can respond to situations and the goals given to them, the larger ideas about political reforms and peaceful methods to resolve conflict have to come from other places.

As such, now many organised militaries are engaged in fighting un organised opponents, the military goal is to provide the initial peace thats it, for example
limiting the violence during elections in Iraq,
making contact with people on the area level and gathering local intelligence,
making sure that a expected military assignment like carrying out a house to house search proceeds with the least amount of casualties,
making sure a patrol covers as much area as it can and checks for infiltration without taking unneccesary risks etc. etc.
Carrying out confidense building measures like providing humanitarian aid, organising health camps etc. etc.
Observing the stategy of insurgents and making sure that they evolve with them and keep going on.
Having enough operational freedom to ensure that the troops do not face undue stress (they need to go home to the family too), which i think is one of the most important factors.
etc. etc.

i have had these conversations with some of my family members engaged in areas with similar insurgency, in my opinion the bigger and more important solutions can not possibly come from the military.

 

[FutureTank]

Interesting the way you said
"However, I don't want to get into politics here for fear of Mods"
after going neck deep into it.
I like this way.
Yes as much as i will like to retort to your comments on India (which i find offensive and uninformed) i too will not like to waste the space reserved for military discussion for it.
as i said an agreement to disagree in a civilised way.
And will not like to send somebody a PM with my opinions as that defies the reason for being on a discussion board.

Well, no offense intended, but I say it like I see it. There is a lot of Ghandi mystique, but behind the scenes there was a lot of party and faction machinations since before the British left (even before WW2), and this trend has continued. I'm not saying that the Indian society is completely corrupt like its neighbours, and not even that most of the Indian political leadership is corrupt, but the way Indian democracy works is not quite how it works in the 'West'. I have talked to quite a few Indians on the subject, and they largely confirm this.

Again the military can respond to situations and the goals given to them, the larger ideas about political reforms and peaceful methods to resolve conflict have to come from other places.

As such, now many organised militaries are engaged in fighting unorganised opponents, the military goal is to provide the initial peace thats it, for example
limiting the violence during elections in Iraq,
making contact with people on the area level and gathering local intelligence,
making sure that a expected military assignment like carrying out a house to house search proceeds with the least amount of casualties,
making sure a patrol covers as much area as it can and checks for infiltration without taking unnecessary risks etc. etc.
Carrying out confidence building measures like providing humanitarian aid, organising health camps etc. etc.
Observing the strategy of insurgents and making sure that they evolve with them and keep going on.
Having enough operational freedom to ensure that the troops do not face undue stress (they need to go home to the family too), which i think is one of the most important factors.
etc. etc.

i have had these conversations with some of my family members engaged in areas with similar insurgency, in my opinion the bigger and more important solutions can not possibly come from the military.

In the case of India again the case is unique. In fact India has four very different security challenges that require very versatile and flexible approach.
These are (starting in the North and going clockwise):
Kashmir - high altitude conflict with poor surface communications
Eastern border that is very difficult to secure due to the nature of terrain, but can pose direct threat to Indian society and economy.
The South - this is a socio-political issue that is thousands of years old due to the separation of Hindu and Tamil societies. I don't see a military solution.
And of course the Indo-Pakistani border that has its own challenges, but I don't see a political solution (as much as I wish there could be one).

An added challenge is Bangladesh, and what will happen to this nation and ts people if the sea levels do rise due to global climate change in the next 50 years. It may not pose a military threat to India, but it would create a socio-economic challenge which the Government will invariably attempt to solve by using the military in the same way South Africa is trying to cope with influx of illegal economic refugees from the North.