an issue:
"...But what we are doing there, while absolutely taking place in the middle of an Iraqi Insurgency, is not COIN. COIN is what the Iraqi government is conducting, and it is as much about improving their own governance of the populace as it is about containing any manifestations of those that challenge that governance.

If anything the role of the intervening party is the most complex of all, because it is the intervener who in fact must make what often is treated as an "irrevocable choice" about which aspect of the populace he will support in this complex dance among "The Populace.""
as Bob's World said...

Only thing I'd add to that is that the intervenor's 'irrevocable choice' reverts to CavGuy's assertion with regard to the population:
That phrase was borrowed from Kilcullen. You are probably right, but you want the population to "get off the fence" and side with you in such a way that it becomes difficult to switch back. Anything can switch back, but we want it to be painful to do so.
The intervenor has made a choice when he enters the fray, it can be irrevocable -- or not...

As Mike F summarizes:
1. A person, group, actor that is external or foreign (i.e. AQI, NVA) is a partisan force. This force is attempting to arbitrate in the state's affairs.

2. The state is the one that conducts COIN. As an outside force (i.e. in Iraq) we can assist through FID, SFA, etc...)

3. Our actions in Iraq thus far should be charaterized as an occupation using COIN principles or tactics."
Other than preferring Bob's 'intervene' to Mike's 'arbitrate, I thought -- and think -- most were thinking that and that it is correct. Though I see no problem with saying that we were or are conducting COIN operations (with the implied 'in conjunction with HN forces.').