Quote Originally Posted by rborum View Post
My point here was not really to argue that conflicts are different than counterinsurgencies, but to clarify my interest in learning what factors would make the "utility of force" vary in different COIN campaigns (as well as perhaps in different non-COIN conflicts).
Wilf can of course answer for himself but to me, the simplistic answer -- which is not at all simple -- is 'the adversary' and, of course, one's goal. Either of those can be a thread unto themselves. Goes back to Bob's World's analogy; Slugging a stranger; your neighbor; or your son all mean different types of adversaries and probably different goals on your part as well as differing reasons for the provocation on their part. Wars vary as widely as people.
there is consensus that the political objective in any COIN campaign is to establish the control by the counterinsurgent's government (CG).
That is possibly true, perhaps even probably so but it is not universal. In Afghanistan for example, some of the Talibs want that, others do not, the AQ and foreign fighters there mostly are just desirous of fighting Americans and / or Westerners. Few wars are simple.
But some think the only/best way to to establish CG control is to overwhelm the resistance with devastating force - and that overdoing is unlikely to significantly interfere with establishing and sustaining the CG control. CG control - in this model - is a function of coercive power, not political legitimacy.
I think very few military people would espouse that view other than in the very rare circumstances where that might be a viable option. Kenya in the mid 50s come close, the Boer Wars are perhaps a better example. Both would be proscribed due to popular opinion today. Thus, there are likely few occasions where anyone could or would seriously consider that approach.
While other believe that the only/best way to establish CG control is to use force selectively so as not to risk alienating the population. CG control - in this model - is a function of political legitimacy...Does that fairly characterize the positions or am I off base?
That view is correct, I think, I'd only throw in the caveat that CG control may not be an issue.

I do not believe the 'devastating force' option is subscribed to by many. The issue is the degree of force that constitutes 'minimal' or 'selectively' and the determining factor on that for most is own casualties. Some believe those must be accepted for the greater good or 'accomplishing the mission.' Others believe they should be minimized for own good or there will be public clamor leading tor no troops to complete the mission. The issue becomes far more significant when the forces involved are third parties -- e.g. the US and UK as well as other in either Afghanistan or Iraq (or Viet Nam, Malaya, Algeria...). Third party nation citizens can and will strongly question the merit of a 'softly' approach if it increases their casualties. They tend, mostly, to be less concerned with other casualties.