Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
That may be true, but it isn't germane to those in the fight. My point is you rejected population control as an effective COIN tactic, and my opinion you couldn't be more wrong. At the tactical/operational level it is essential. A counterinsurgency strategy must address populace control (it is the only means to isolate the populace from the enemy), which is always tailored to each individual situation. It rarely means employing the methods utilized in Malaysia or Algeria, which are the most frequently cited case studies because they were so extreme (but also effective). It seems you believe there is acceptable political middle ground that will be acceptable to the Islamists and those more moderate, and somehow this middle ground will emerge through some sort of natural political evolution under our gentle guiding hand. Sharia law and the extremists who want to impose a strict version of it are not going to accept anything less, so where is this compromise or evolution you speak of? If we're going to fight it (assuming that remains our policy in select locations such as Afghanistan), then we're (coalition/HN/US) going to have to exert some degree of control over the populace. You can't state that the population is key terrain then simply surrender that terrain to the enemy. For those who support the arguments against populace control, just what the heck do we think the Taliban are doing? Are they not attempting to establish control over the populace? In most cases it coerced control.

I agree we need policy changes, but once you're given a military mission, then we have to focus on what works in that situation. It is easy to state simply do away with population control, and then find another way, but I haven't seen any viable ideas presented as alternative strategies for those with muddy boots.



Really? Last time I looked we conquered the West (and East), and the so called lingering problems are very minor. The lingering problems are not due to population control, but do to the conflict. I'm not aware of any conflict where there aren't lingering problems. We strive for utopia, we don't live it.
When was the last time you preferred to be "controlled" in some context, rather than been "supported.?"


The U.S. has interests. These must be supported, that is our job. But, if we do so in such a way that we offend the populaces of the countries where those interests lie, we harm our cause, rather than support it.

Interests will rarely match up, so this requires that we make reasonable compromise. Others before us have used their historic positions of power to ignore popular concerns and to enforce their will over others. Those power are all now minor players on the global scene. We can avoid their fate by refuting their tactics. We must, must, live up to our American heritage by being the one nation that marches to a different drummer.

The age of European dominance over others is over. We held their place to win the Cold War, but now that is over too. Now we enter a new age, and we can lead the way and prevail, or seek to obstruct the way and be over ran.

To me, the choice is obvious. We must lead.