Allow me to suggest some self-education for you, since you evidently do not know what you are talking about.
Not that you will. I've offered you the relevant doctrinal and theoretical background for years and you have demonstrated yourself utterly unwilling to actually input new information if that information might challenge your preconceived notions on how to conduct the long war.
That doesn't even make sense. "cut ally" ? what does that even mean.And frankly, no where have I remotely suggested that we give up. The sound bite is so engrained in some they never really listen to what is being said. I want us to cut ally combat the problem, effectively, that one day it may actually end and not be endless like the situation in Palestine.
And while there are some differences between the situations, the British method could work, with perhaps some minor adjustments. The rationale is sound. Instead of repeatedly making the enemy more appealing than us.
Look, all I really need to put out is this: using the British as the model of how to conduct counterinsurgency is.... well....
well, it would sort of be like suggesting that we adopt the soviet central control mechanisms for food distribution. You are picking the worst of the current strategy ranges Their's is the Rumsfeld Doctrine squared. There is a reason that we always have to send in the Marines to clean up an area after it has been under British Control - because that is when it falls apart and the enemy has complete freedom of movement in the AO. Again, you skyline yourself as someone who has little to no background, experience, or education in that which you are pontificating about.