Bad scenario. The rebels in it are acting too simplistically and making things too easy.
Unfortunately, narrow thinking is our specialty. Were I reviewing this, I'd send it back and have them rewrite the scenario (a) minus the racism angle and (b) taking into consideration the political constraints of fighting a popular movement, not a fringe one. The problem is, our planners are notorious for avoiding awkward truths, and building scenarios out of wishful thinking.
For example, a long time ago, when a certain insurgency was a fairly new thing, I got shanghai'd into a counterterrorism VTC looking at a certain aspect of said insurgency. Military and civil organizations from all corners chimed in very dismissively of the insurgents political staying power. They felt that extremists would invariably be unpopular and unable to sustain any kind of public support or prolonged operational presence.
The State department reps (who I normally am inclined to dislike) made a very simple but terrifying observation. They basically said that extremist terror was not at all unpopular; in fact, on a lot of levels, our 'allies' in the region and their citizens enjoyed seeing the insurgents stick it to us. Not only would the insurgents not be socially ostracized, but they'd likely be viewed as heroes by a significant majority of region. They advised that we take the inherent social approval of the resistance into consideration.
The reaction was like the sun rising in the North. For a few moments, no one knew what to do or how to react. After a bit of cross talk the officers running the VTC pivoted to the next topic, and we moved on, as though nothing had been said. The officers refused to consider that State may have had a point. Not because they were wrong, but because the implications of them being right were politically unthinkable.