Um? Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Gustafus Adolphus, the Roman Empire, the English in France in the 100 Years War, ...
I would say it's unusual that an occupation survives more than a generation after it begins. Either the occupying power battles over its own succession, or another occupying power takes over, or the resistance makes it so unpleasant that the occupying power leaves semi-voluntarily.
These are great examples of occupation never ending. In the English-French-Burgundy-whomever conflict, conquering forces only departed when others drove them out - this was not liberation but a chain of oppression, often a case of the "French" oppressing the "French" (as there was little in the way of nationhood back then). Raiding was a more typical form of warfare, though, and did not count as occupation... Alexander left permanent occupation forces basically everywhere he went, and while some were driven out just a generation later, this was by new conquerors, not by any sort of "native uprising" or "liberation of natives" or "native" anything. And
no lands held by Romans were ever returned to their pre-Roman owners: all of Europe was shaped anew by the successions of conquests.
While Napoleon brings us closer to industrialization and the concept of superpowers that can play chess with smaller "independent" nations, his wars also led to continuing occupation of eastern European peoples. And when the Soviet bloc collapsed, it left borders that enforced old lines of occupation.
Even in the past century, are there any examples of an occupying force being driven out by the occupied people? Liberation of western Europe in WWII clearly doesn't count; the natives played no real role in that. Vietnam clearly doesn't count; one occupation followed another there. Afghanistan only counts in the sense that the occupying force went bankrupt - but the force that took power afterwards was quite distant from the one that had held power before the occupation.
Whether Bajorans played any real role in the liberation of Bajor, it's impossible to tell by the episodes alone. There are at least four sides to the issue: roughly speaking, Bajoran freedom fighters, the rest (i.e. the government) of Bajor, Cardassian Central Command, the rest (i.e. the government) of Cardassia. All hold different views on the issue.
IIRC, the Cardassian military was generally non-discriminatory - females could ascend to command positions as well as the men could.
The sciences field supposedly was highly discriminatory, there being little or no room for males there. The same seemed to go for the intelligence business - perhaps Garak only made a career by being deliberately effeminate?
A major factor here is that Cardassians supposedly held family ties in great respect, greater than any known human culture. We saw little of this "supposed" state of affairs, but we were explicitly told that Dukat's philandering was highly exceptional and condemnable. Quite possibly only a very small clique of extreme perverts engaged in the comfort women business, then, and an even smaller one took native lovers - and this was only possible as long as the Prefect was "one of them", a ringleader of rare perverts. Sheer probability might result in lack of comfort men, then.
One thing of note about Terok Nor is that it is in many ways a "small" affair: as per "Necessary Evil" and the like, few Bajorans are employed there, these being something of an elite rather than among the more oppressed classes. Many collaborators are to be found there, obviously enough, as those would have reasons, incentives and clearances to work close to their oppressing overlords. That a practice of sex slavery and an associated (but not very closely associated) practice of liaisons with natives may thrive there is possibly very poor indication of it going on elsewhere on Bajor, or in the Union.
Timo Saloniemi
Dukat spared their families in return. What do you think about these women? 
