(If they support the insurgent's ideology, then we're on the losing side and shouldn't be there to begin with unless we're practicing UW).
I agree with that. Totally. However, what if, as in Viet Nam, Afghanistan and Iraq, the population doesn't really support the 'insurgents' but OTOH, they don't support you or the government either; they just want everyone to go away and leave them alone. That really compounds your population control problem.
This includes check points, intelligence operations, combat outposts, patrols, information operations, etc
Agree with that definition and you're correct that the 'control' word produces bad vibes for some -- but the real problem is not that you are going to put em in Camps -- the real problem is that you cannot put them in camps, thus you are NOT going to control them and you are unlikely to have enough people to effect any can kind of temporary control over other than a small area. Population control's problem is that it takes more people than the US Army can provide in most cases.
This why I think severe punative raids may be a better option in some cases instead of occupying a country and trying to transform their society at great cost to "all" concerned. In my opinion we over emphasize what we can accomplish with soft power.
Agreed!