What is presence patrolling?

[Eden]

We started calling them 'presents' patrols since we almost always were passing out soccer balls or gum or something.

Seriously, the reason why we didn't like the term 'presence' was not that it was not in the field manuals; it was because it often denoted a patrol that was routinized, purposeless, and non-productive, if not actually counter-productive.

Every patrol should have a purpose, or multiple purposes. It can be 'engage citizen X and Y', or 'observe activity in marketplace', or 'conduct route reconnaissance'. Too many times, 'presence patrols' were labeled that way because subordinate commanders had no clue what they should be doing or were too lazy or too busy to properly plan their daily activities. A 'presence patrol' was easy to mount and easy to count as successful. In our corner of the world we just directed that they be called 'patrols' and that each had a clear task and purpose attached.

[Tom Odom]

We started calling them 'presents' patrols since we almost always were passing out soccer balls or gum or something.

Seriously, the reason why we didn't like the term 'presence' was not that it was not in the field manuals; it was because it often denoted a patrol that was routinized, purposeless, and non-productive, if not actually counter-productive.

Spot on. The term presence becomes synonomous with routine interpreted to mean "no planning and no purpose". We did that as UN observers too often and I suspect it migrated from the Balkan operations to US operations.

It is not the same as a presence mission; establish a presence is a mission. Conduct a "presence" patrol however soon turns into drive through/walk through without a purpose, without a plan, and all too often without a clue. We saw this quite a bit at the JRTC especially in the earlier days of MREs; such patrols were meat on the hook for Geranimo

Best
Tom

[IntelTrooper]

It is not the same as a presence mission; establish a presence is a mission. Conduct a "presence" patrol however soon turns into drive through/walk through without a purpose, without a plan, and all too often without a clue. We saw this quite a bit at the JRTC especially in the earlier days of MREs; such patrols were meat on the hook for Geranimo

From what I saw in Afghanistan in early 08-09, this is what "presence/presents patrols" turned into, especially in the over-tasked and under-resourced East. A weekly/monthly visit to a district center constituted a "presence" patrol, and was done as fast as possible. Stops in the bazaar, or to talk to road workers, etc. were verboten, because it was time consuming and we had to be back before dark.

As a HUMINT guy, these "patrols" were almost worthless, even if one of the supposed purposes was to "gather intelligence" (other than for orientation so we could refer to landmarks when talking to sources). It's really hard to gather intelligence when watching out the window of a HUMVEE/MRAP and then talking to a corrupt district police chief for fifteen minutes.

[PhilR]

Spot on. The term presence becomes synonomous with routine interpreted to mean "no planning and no purpose". We did that as UN observers too often and I suspect it migrated from the Balkan operations to US operations.

It is not the same as a presence mission; establish a presence is a mission. Conduct a "presence" patrol however soon turns into drive through/walk through without a purpose, without a plan, and all too often without a clue. We saw this quite a bit at the JRTC especially in the earlier days of MREs; such patrols were meat on the hook for Geranimo

Best
Tom

Its unfortunate that we get hung up on task terminology and definition and not on the PURPOSE. I always liked the COA development drill I learned at Ft Benning that directed development of the PURPOSES for all of the moving parts before assigning them aligned tasks. the tasks were understood to be subordiante, supporting, concepts to the PURPOSE.
As JCustis relates above, patrolling is another method, just like establishing a COP, or conducting a sweep, or doing something else. Its hard for our troops to be "strategic corporals" if they don't know why they are doing what they do.
I'd hope that any patrol is conducted as part of a larger plan (that considers more than just the patrol itself). A patrol, by its nature, is not as permanent as a COP, or other outpost, but we can control the periodicity, the randomness, the area covered. There was also a comment about ceding the night (no patrols?). I hope that's not true. I'd wager that "presence" at night in certain areas is as important as "presence" during the day.

Phil Ridderhof USMC

[Bullmoose Bailey]

In the question of Patrol efficacy: do you think they can replace intel collection & security measures in and around outposts? I've felt minefields, early warning systems, wire and other obstacles might also have a place in security. If so does all this apply in certain AOs & not others as might be expected?

The presence patrol is so enshrined in the western mentality that you might say I'm conducting a presence patrol incident to a Ford Motor Company psy-ops campaign just by driving in public.

"Showing the flag" is a consistent part of the method behind such patrols. Don't forget every patrol is a reconnaisance patrol & as the US soldier is the "Ultimate Weapon" every patrol is a kind of victory parade in the spirit of TR's Great White Fleet Voyage...

[jcustis]

as the US soldier is the "Ultimate Weapon" every patrol is a kind of victory parade in the spirit of TR's Great White Fleet Voyage...

I'm not sure I savvy your meaning with this, but if you're leaning towards presence patrols as a means of showing who's boss, I suppose that could work. More often than not, at least in Afghanistan, I think we'd be more likely to simply breed resentment or one sort or another.

[MikeF]

In every endeavor, whether it's establishing a patrol base, conducting a raid, or patrolling, the commander is trying to conduct operations to shape his environment.

Prior to execution, one must ask:

1. What am I trying to accomplish? (Purpose)
2. What do I want my boys to do? (Intent)
3. What are the likely costs and results of x action? (Intended consequences)
4. What am I missing? (Unintended consequences)

To this end, one should neither establish a patrol base just to check off some list of "things I should be doing in COIN" nor send squads out on patrol to "show a presence."

Purpose and Intent are everything in orders. Patrols can be intelligence driven to answer CCIR. For example, 1. Go hang out at at the barber shop, pool hall, gym to see what the latest intel is on x group. 2. Go talk to y farmer to see how the crops are doing. 3. Go talk to z schoolteacher to find out if she got the books ordered and how exams are coming. The worst thing a commander can do (IMO), is to send soldiers out on missions with no purpose or intent.

PhilR brings up an excellent point on night operations. In some denied areas, where host nation runs the area by day and shadow gov'ts run it at night, conducting security actions (raids, ambushes, movement to contact) during the night is the best way to take back control of an area.

Mike

[Bill Moore]

Prior to execution, one must ask:

1. What am I trying to accomplish? (Purpose)
2. What do I want my boys to do? (Intent)
3. What are the likely costs and results of x action? (Intended consequences)
4. What am I missing? (Unintended consequences)

It was this type of excessive conventional thinking that got us in the mess we're in (firebase mentality, while everything outside the base falls apart).

Yes, we still should the standard 5 paragraph patrol order with associated contingencies, but in general presence patrols, if run correctly, will turn into discovery patrols, which in turn result in FRAGOs on the fly if you have capable leadership at the tactical level and a supporting chain of command that empowers their subordinates to act independently. This mentality that a patrol can only have one purpose sounds too much like drive by COIN, and I hope we're not teaching our counterparts this approach, because it results in a culture of inactivity (thus allowing the enemy freedom of movement) and they only respond to 9/11 calls. You just can't dumb the real world down to fit our ideal doctrinal response. This is equivalent to saying police officers should simply sit in their police stations all day unless they have a specific task and target?