There are two major schools of though on CounterInsurgency (COIN from here on out).
The first school of thought is that we go in, we set up programs, we chase down and kill bad guys, and somehow this leads to stability and prosperity. The current COIN manual kinda espouses this view. This is how we fought in Vietnam and how the USSR fought in Afghanistan.
The second school of thought is that we go in, figure out how we can help the local populace achieve the goals they want to achieve, and then help them build prosperity and security. This is the kind of COIN that you find espoused in books such as "The Ugly American" which is really a must read for anyone trying to understand effective and ineffective ways to combat an insurgency.
When you take a look at the two schools of thought, it becomes clear that one is "top down, government centric" and the other is "bottom up, people centric." Getting people at all levels involved in governence and development, empowering them to be part of the process. This type of COIN is generally the more successful strategy.
Depending on how a person thinks depends a lot on how they are going to view a successful counterinsurgency strategy.
The first type of strategy is endorsed by the big government crowd. The second type of strategy is endorsed by the pro-liberty crowd. Guess which strategy has a better chance of winning? If you guessed strategy number two you are correct.
The question becomes, with what I see as a homegrown insurgency brewing in the United States, how can our own government which recognizes that a successful counterinsurgency strategy involves empowering the people, rush so hard to failure in trying to curb the freedoms of Americans?
On the flip side, they got away with it in Europe. However the Europeans didn't give up their guns, and now that the money is running out people are forming tribes, acting local, and getting a bit more "conservative" when it comes to relying on big government. We only have to look to Greece to see our financial future, so it isn't too much of a stretch to think that our political future will be similar.
It is funny, that a government that can most effectively wage a COIN fight is the government that needs least to do so. The French led the way in the insurgency against a bloated and abusive central government, heck Mao did the same (then created another bloated abusive central government, but for the peoples own good of course). Whatever the case, the more people feel disconnected from their government, the more disenfranchised they feel, the more likely an insurgency is to succeed.