Because it serves an important psychological function on the local populace and on the opposition in such conflicts. That benefit disappears in higher order conflicts.Very valid point, applies to the US also and it impugns senior people, not the troops. My belief is that most people will not succumb to that very human failure.If my service went into a mid-level conflict environment, the presence patrolling concept would not get hung up but would stay as baggage as that is what has been taught, practiced and reinforced. The lessons would be learnt quickly but that's not the point (or perhaps it is the point - if we can learn the lessons now, when men aren't losing lives, the better off we are).I somewhat agree but, like Infanteer, think the terminology is mostly irrelevant (while acknowledging that there will be some that hang their hats on the issue...). A 'presence' patrol is mostly a reconnaissance that also serves, secondarily, the canine function of marking all the trees in your AO.Tactical task verbs (the ends) apply to all intensities of military operations, the means will change METT-TC dependent. I see 'presence patrolling' as a means elevated to an ends, and for the reasons outlined above I don't like it.Because Doctrine writers make misteaks?Yes, presence is synergistic and beneficial so why define your patrol by it's second-order effect? If it's a clearance patrol then clear - and if you need to be overt for reasons of 'presence' in order to do so inside the COIN environment, go ahead.That's all that counts......it's the same thing and you can call it what you want but doing it well is the problem.
Bookmarks