and everyone knows that templer came in within a matter of months and turn the counterinsurgency aroundhere by the time he left, 28 months later, the counterinsurgency were on the road to victory. the question of how he did it is much less well understood. and there's a common argument that what he really did was that he codified some best practices, put them into a counterinsurgency manual, and the distribution of this manual helped them figure out how to defeat the enemy. in fact, you'll see that interpretation in the army marine corps counterinsurgency manual, 324, and part of the reason that manual was written because of this belief that templer's manual had been the be all, and all and malaya. i did some digging into that and i found that interpretation was not correct. if you look at the strategy, they do something called a bridge plan to the bridge plan had been in effect since 1950, and the tactics they used were not any different. they had in previous years developed some tactics based heavily on what had been learned in burma and southern africa. so how was it that he was able