Population contol's a theory, no more. Populations are extraordinarily difficult to control; people tend to object to having others tell them where to go or what to do. posted by Ken
Controlling the population a task, not a theory. It is a task that must be achieved to obtain a victory in a COIN. Fail to control the population and you might as well pack your bags and go home. Forget Malaysia, rather focus on what control means, then adapt your measures to your unique situation.

Control is a "task" to exercise physical or psychological influence over a specified area, population, or resource to prevent its use by the enemy.

In COIN the key terrain is the populace, and failure to control it puts you in an unwinnable situation. The populace is the key terrain that the insurgent and a good counterinsurgent is struggling to control.

Control measures range from the severe to the gentle persuaive arts of propaganda (talking points, films, fliers, engaging key local leaders) etc. However, regardless of the method used the most important supporting task is protecting the populace. Both sides will strive for legitimate control of the populace where the populace willingly supports them; however, the insurgent will use coercive measures to control the population as required as we are again seeing today. If the counterinsurgent can't protect the populace he CANNOT control them. To protect them he must be there, so combat outposts are essential. They are dangerous and in my opinion the hardest fight in COIN. Anyone can do raids and drop bombs on insurgents, but it is hard work to live 24/7 among the populace and protect them and yourselves, and there will be set backs. Commanders have to have realistic expectations and expect loses, but over time control can be established, if it can't then we need to reassess why we're there.

We controlled the American Indians by killing, displacing them and implementing a reservation system. The Soviets controlled their population with a secret police and fear. Mao used fear (mass murder) and brainwashing. However, they lacked legitimate control and they could only afford to swing the stick for so long, so it clear why these systems failed.

Realistically the host nation must establish control with our support. Occupiers cannot provide legitimate control. However, assuming the people don't want to be controlled by the insurgents and once they are convinced you're their to help them and that you will act on their intelligence tips they'll begin pointing out the insurgents to you, so you can start draining the swamp. It takes time and there will be set backs.

Now my politically incorrect thought, if the people honestly desire to be ruled by the insurgents and are supporting them because they believe in their cause, not because they are being coerced, we then have a much bigger problem. At this point we may have to use various degrees of coercive measures initially to control the populace until we can mobilize them to support the host nation government. If for some reason this can't be done, then the insurgency cannot be defeated. This is where we need to set aside our political correct assumptions and fight the populace as we did against the Indians and in the Philippines. How do you sustain national and international will to engage in this type of war? Perhaps another option is to allow the insurgents to win, then coerce the new State, which will be much more vulnerable to our military power.