What is presence patrolling?

[jcustis]

It may seem like blindingly common sense, but when we look at the COIN context, and throw in the paradigm of the combat outpost, as seen is post 86 of this thread: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...?t=5626&page=5, common sense isn't so easy to determine.

I think any discussion of presence patrolling needs to have a parallel discussion of the conditions (remember TASK - CONDITION - STANDARD?) to the patrol in question, or how else do you train to standard and evaluate it, and how else do we peel back the layer on this COP issue?

I admit that with the siting of COPs, there must be balance achieved by a rational application of METT-TS&L, but if we want to be able to "presence patrol" what is that balance? What does presence patrolling really give us if the BGs can enjoy freedom of maneuver when we are not there, in the ville (which seems to typically happen at night).

I get frustrated the same as the next guy when I see video of an attack taking place on a low-lying COP, but have had to step back and think but if that's where the people are, then there are some basic operational hazards to deal with in that approach...so be it. What I am more frustrated by are patrols that saunter out of the COP perimeter for a period of time, gain terrain and therefore some security for the locals, and then cede that same terrain when they conclude the patrol. They may be establishing a presence for X period of time, but how is that presence achieving what we are trying to do? More importantly, can there be more efficient and force-preserving ways to achieve the same thing?


You are right Wilf, a presence patrol is, in the end, basic and common sense, and doesn't need to fit into a doctrinal boilerplate. The problem is that presence patrol becomes a bumper sticker slapped on a lot of stuff, and Joe fails to understand the WHY behind why he does it. We definitely need to spend a lot of time lying up, but in a many of the clips I've seen, it doesn't look like our boys are doing that.

[slapout9]

IMO part of the problem is that in most Military patrols you want to detect the presence of the enemy but not reveal your presence until the time of the attack. COIN/Police patrolling is the exact opposite you want to be highly visible for the deterrent effect.....you will get caught so don't commit the crime. Problem is you become a great big target if you are facing a ruthless enemy as opposed to a run of the mill criminal.

[William F. Owen]

IMO part of the problem is that in most Military patrols you want to detect the presence of the enemy but not reveal your presence until the time of the attack. COIN/Police patrolling is the exact opposite you want to be highly visible for the deterrent effect.....you will get caught so don't commit the crime. Problem is you become a great big target if you are facing a ruthless enemy as opposed to a run of the mill criminal.

Got it in one Slap, me old'Mustang driver!

What you really want to do is switch seamlessly between the two, and keep everyone else guessing. Not that hard, once you know how.

[slapout9]

Got it in one Slap, me old'Mustang driver!

What you really want to do is switch seamlessly between the two, and keep everyone else guessing. Not that hard, once you know how.

Yep, it police world you would have a mix of uniformed and plain clothes police officers and then go have fun watching the bad guys try to figure it out

[jcustis]

Not that hard, once you know how.

That's a great proposition, but "knowing how" is where we (at least in the American military) fall short at times.

We have too many leaders who simply want to live in a base, push a patrol out to a specific point to conduct a specific task like an ambush or raid(that can be measured), then go back to base calling it a day and mission accomplished. This mind set has contaminated both conventional and special operations forces.

Yes, a big problem...I don't want to go to a specific point and come back though. I want to go to another specific point and perform a task, then another point. Stay afield and perform a rest cycle, then begin anew. With very few exceptions, we don't do that, but it's been proven as recently as this year that we can.

Our response was always, "okay, if the task of 'presence patrol' or 'administrative movement' is an improper 'tactical task,' then please tell us whether raid, ambush, or movement to contact is more appropriate for my 'patrol' to meet with the local police chief."

As denoted below from the Marine Corps publication "Marine Rifle Squad" MCWP 3-11.2 (the acronym we use for combat patrols is RACES), that could appropriately be categorized as a contact patrol because the chief is supposed to be friend. It could also, in a sense of splitting hairs, be categorized as a basic security patrol.

a. Raid Patrols. Raid patrols destroy or capture enemy personnel or
equipment, destroy installations, or free friendly personnel who have been
captured by the enemy.
b. Contact Patrols. Contact patrols establish and/or maintain contact
with friendly or enemy forces.
c. Economy of Force Patrols. Economy of force patrols perform
limited objective missions such as seizing and holding key terrain to allow
maximum forces to be used elsewhere.
d. Ambush Patrols. Ambush patrols conduct ambushes of enemy
patrols, carrying parties, foot columns, and convoys.
e. Security Patrols. Security patrols detect infiltration by the enemy, kill
or capture infiltrators, and protect against surprise or ambush.

I don't think we get hung up on the actual task as much as we struggle with the PURPOSE, based on what higher headquarters wants us to do, what our personal protective equipment posture is supposed to be, what the enemy situation is (another area we tend to be terrible at at times), what the terrain and weather look like, what conveyance we intend to use to get to those specific points we outline, what the civilian situation is, and on and on. And sometimes, figuring that out amongst the rest of the white noise, requires lot more than just common sense.

[slapout9]

jcustis, yea it is just guard duty You have an interior and exterior guard, you have mobile patrols and fixed posts all over your AO.......I will guard everything within the limits of post and quit my post only when properly relieved. we don't need a COIN manual we need basic training general orders.

The other COIN Manual FM 22-6 Guard Duty......The Real POP-Centric manual.
https://rdl.train.army.mil/soldierPo...m/22-6/toc.htm

[jcustis]

we don't need a COIN manual we need basic training general orders.

Aye, and we need to take a really hard look at the operational risk calculations when we are figuring this stuff out. I'm convinced that based on the threat (which is no joke, I grant you) we are defaulting to mostly passive measures to mitigate the risk, and that is all so very wrong.

[William F. Owen]

You are right Wilf, a presence patrol is in the end basic and common sense, and doesn't need to fit into a doctrinal boilerplate. The problem is that presence patrol becomes a bumper sticker slapped on a lot of stuff, and Joe fails to understand the WHY behind why he does it. We definitely need to spend a lot of time lying up, but in a many of the clips I've seen, it doesn't look like our boys are doing that.

Common sense is not so common?

Back when I was serving, I came to the conclusion, and more so since, that a great deal of what is taught about patrolling in western armies not really thought through very well. There is a good deal of confusing process with outcomes.
If you are walking the streets to walk the streets, then something is wrong. Patrols have to have an objective and clear purpose. Joe should be taught that.
That's why there is a huge difference between hunting and just walking around the woods with a gun!