Results 1 to 20 of 129

Thread: New Guidance on Counter-Insurgency

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilR View Post
    Phil Ridderhof USMC

    Are you the same Phil R. that wrote this paper?
    Sorta fits New Guidance if it is the first time you have read it
    http://capmarine.com/cap/thesis.htm

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Norfolk VA
    Posts
    77

    Default A long time ago...

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9 View Post
    Are you the same Phil R. that wrote this paper?
    Sorta fits New Guidance if it is the first time you have read it
    http://capmarine.com/cap/thesis.htm
    I wrote that as an undergraduate thesis in 1986. I gave a copy to a CAP vet in 1997 and he later uploaded it to the internet.
    Its been some time ago, but I don't think I'm far off my present point, in one of the paper's concluding paragraphs, however:

    "Combined Action worked at providing area security. It excelled at this. It did work at pacification and Vietnamization. Pacification could only occur if the population felt that the GVN was stronger and preferable than the VC. Successful Vietnamization of the war was the only way this shift of thought could happen. No matter how effective at combating the VC the CAPs were, the CAPs were still US run units and represented foreigners who would someday leave. Unless the GVN was able to survive without US troops, it would lose the war. Combined Action could have been a positive step towards preparing the GVN to survive alone, but the effort in that direction was not there. There is also evidence that with the GVN, all the effort in the world would not have worked."

    s/f
    Phil Ridderhof USMC

  3. #3
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PhilR View Post
    I wrote that as an undergraduate thesis in 1986. I gave a copy to a CAP vet in 1997 and he later uploaded it to the internet.
    Its been some time ago, but I don't think I'm far off my present point, in one of the paper's concluding paragraphs, however:

    "Combined Action worked at providing area security. It excelled at this. It did work at pacification and Vietnamization. Pacification could only occur if the population felt that the GVN was stronger and preferable than the VC. Successful Vietnamization of the war was the only way this shift of thought could happen. No matter how effective at combating the VC the CAPs were, the CAPs were still US run units and represented foreigners who would someday leave. Unless the GVN was able to survive without US troops, it would lose the war. Combined Action could have been a positive step towards preparing the GVN to survive alone, but the effort in that direction was not there. There is also evidence that with the GVN, all the effort in the world would not have worked."

    s/f
    Phil Ridderhof USMC
    It is an excellant paper and you make an excellant point.

Similar Threads

  1. Thailand (catch all)
    By Jedburgh in forum Asia-Pacific
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 08-31-2015, 06:34 AM
  2. Insurgency in the 21st Century
    By SteveMetz in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-17-2010, 05:59 PM
  3. Insurgency and Civil COIN indicators
    By stu in forum Social Sciences, Moral, and Religious
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-24-2009, 02:01 PM
  4. Revising FM 3-24: What needs to change?
    By Cavguy in forum Doctrine & TTPs
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 07-29-2008, 12:31 PM
  5. Profusion of Rebel Groups Helps Them Survive
    By DDilegge in forum Who is Fighting Whom? How and Why?
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-25-2007, 01:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •