Hello, folks.
I understand the long-standing historical influences of population-centric counterinsurgency as it is articulated today, but who or what popularized the actual phrase "population-centric counterinsurgency" in contemporary American COIN? I always hear FM3-24 held up as the exemplar--for good and bad--but the actual phrase (correct me if I'm wrong) never appears in it. Any thoughts?
Thanks!
See Dave Kilcullen's blog article on this site, "Two Schools of Counteinsurgency" a couple of years ago (or more).
Thanks! If by any chance there's an earlier reference to this phrase, please let me know.
Seems like it has been around for ever now, but I think John is right, it was the concept that drove our strategy to a pivot point in Iraq (surge to enable our forces to protect the populace) largely defined by Dr. Kilcullen. However, Kilcullen later clarified that he never said or implied that population centric COIN meant we shouldn't simultaneously aggressively pursue and kill the enemy, and was surprised that some units took the population centric aspect to the extreme (by neglecting the enemy centric), especially in Afghanistan. Most COIN efforts will require a holistic effort that is appropriately balanced for the particular conflict and the phase that the conflict is in.
Erich, looks like you started an interesting blog, at least the focus is interesting. Have you done any papers on the confluence of war, technology and culture?
Thanks! My masters thesis was on arms transfers (specifically focusing on small arms) as cultural conduit. My most recent publication was in SWJ on choosing what texts to teach in a counterinsurgency course and whether or not fiction was viable; you can read it here.
I have a piece on the human problems of RPVs in the works, but I am tied up in my dissertation and a few other side projects at the moment. My dissertation is on representations of T. E. Lawrence in contemporary American counterinsurgency discourse, and my original post was related to that.