Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
Wilf: I completely understand your position, and it is a reasonable one. It just isn't very helpful (in fact, it is quite harmful) for understanding insurgency.
Bob, I'm not confused as to how to defeat a rebellion. I understand how its done. I am just staggered at the line of thinking that prevents others seeing it. For example, why do you keep saying "Insurgency" instead of "armed rebellion."

I recommend that one should:
1. Separates insurgency from warfare (which I realize you won't do, not trying to convince you, just stating my perspective);
An insurgency is an armed rebellion. Warfare is the conduct of war. Rebellion requires warfare. How is it useful to engage in separation?
2. Recognize that causation radiates out from the "official" government and falls upon a diverse populace, many of whom may well question the "legitimacy" of said government;
Politics is the cause of all war. Not governments.
3. Understand that "control" of the populace is not a security operation to be waged against them, but rather describes the general state of a populace that is satisfied with its form and nature of governance;
Power is control. The populaces acquiescence just alters to degree of control needed.
4. Realize that COIN is really the day to day efforts of the HN government to create or preserve perceptions of their legitimacy among the populace, and thereby establish a state of control;
When you defeat an armed rebellion, you do so by re-imposing control via the rule of law.

So I remain convinced that it is time to retire the Colonial Intervention (COIN) playbook for foreign interventions. Just as Steam travel and telegraph technology facilitated both the rise and fall of the British Empire; so too has the latest generations of information and transportation technologies facilitated the rise and potential fall of the American age of control as well.
So basically you are saying that technology drives politics? I can't agree with that.