What is presence patrolling?

[davidbfpo]

In a post on the thread 'Leading infantry tactics theoreticians/experts today':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...?t=5626&page=4 Jon Custis raised the issue of what is presence patrolling?

I think this is the part of the paragraph that could launch discussion here:

Perhaps it should start with a look at the definition of patrolling. (My italics) We haven't discussed it here at the SWC from what I can tell, but what is presence patrolling? One of the most significant complaints concerning OIF that I had and saw was the fact we commuted to work and ran patrols that accomplished very little outside of putting eyes on a certain patch of dirt for that particular period of time. We lost way too many good men and women while they drove to work.

In a quick scroll through 'Trigger Puller' I found a couple of threads where the issue appeared: Patrol Base Infantry http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=2675
Costly Protection: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=3902
MRAP & Infantry mobility: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=5696

IIRC the issue has appeared in discussions on peacekeeping and UK operations in Northern Ireland, where building the policing concept of trust and confidence IMHO underpins such patrolling.

May the discussion begin!

[Schmedlap]

"Presence patrol" was often the task in the mission statement handed down to us in Bosnia. This drew the ire of many senior officers who were schooled in the Fulda Gap school of warfighting and who rose through the ranks in the 1990s Army of training for CTC rotations. Some of us began using the more doctrinal-sounding (perhaps even doctrinally correct?) term of "administrative movement." This, too, was objectionable.

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." The real question that we wanted to ask was even more cynical: why do we need to hand in typed copies of our FRAGOs to BN? Are you that paranoid that we're not doing our jobs and are you incapable of verifying by conducting on-the-spot checks, rather than having a pile of paperwork handed to you at your desk? But I digress...

We never got a good answer about why presence patrol was such a problem or what the more appropriate term should be. The gist of it was that we were in Bosnia, largely, to maintain a presence. We did that by driving around and making ourselves highly visible. Hence, the term (task) "presence patrol." It wasn't in 101-5, so it made certain people uneasy.

That is my understanding.

[Bill Moore]

I can't believe that our guys are still asking this, and I suspect it because we have an Army that is indoctrinated versus familiar with doctrine. This gets to Ken's post on the blog under the NPS Thesis on IW, where he severly and rightfully scolds the micro managed training that produces leaders who don't understand the why of what their doing, or how to adapt, they simply follow a series of steps.

Why do we need to maintain a presence with presence patrols? Maybe to keep the enemy off guard, to provide a sense of security to the populace, to collect intelligence, to learn about the people you're there to work with and protect (learn what their complaints are, not simply rely on walk ins), and the list goes on and on. It should probably be mandatory training in leader training to write a paper on why presence patrols are important. Everyone would run to the doctrinal manuals and complain there isn't a book answer, then the answer from the instructor should be along the lines that doctrine is only a guide, you now have a problem where there is no book answer, figure it out. 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.

You won't necessarily know if you're presence patrols are successful, but in the day men capable of thinking independently (like many Americans who haven't been re-educated in military doctrinal schools) could get a good sense without MOP/MOE whether or not they were on the right or not. I know if the police maintain a consistent presence in an area with a high crime rate, the crime goes down. Yea, it's more dangerous for the officers but that is what they get paid for, and we get paid to fight our enemies, not focus solely on force protection. Fighting involves risk, we all know that. I would have been stuck with the information our S2 gave us if I didn't go out and run numerous presence patrols, which by the way greatly informed the S2. Never complained about, didn't bother looking for how to do it in a doctrinal manual, it was simply the right thing to do.

We still have a long ways to go to undue the damage of over indoctrinating our force.

[Ken White]

With an added quote from an AWG Sergeant Major; "All the other combat arms are science, infantry and SF are arts..."

That predicated on the fact that COIN operations are 'Infantry' like regardless of the branch or backgrounds of those involved; it is cued from Bill's point:

"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."

Metrics and war simply do not mix...

Fire tables, tank gunnery, maintenance parameters, preflight checklists all have their place, I guess, however, in ground combat at the tactical level they and the mentality that drive them become impediments. Much I've heard from participants in both Iraq and Afghanistan leads me to believe impedimentia rules.

[William F. Owen]

The UK's concept of "Presence Patrolling" is ensure that the bad guys cannot do stuff, because you are not there to stop them. "Suppress the enemies freedom of action" - just like any patrolling!!

In Northern Ireland, it actually meant lying up in abandoned houses, or woods, sometimes for a couple of days, then suddenly moving into an area unexpectedly.
The object was to appear unexpectedly from an unexpected direction.

In more benign environments it's just showing the flag, and sending he message "don't f**k with us or else," combined with "You're safe because we're here."

All blinding common sense really.

[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.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by JMA

Yes indeed this 'type' of patrol has appeared since my time. We had reservists, policemen and other odds and sods who escorted civilian specialists to visit villages etc, so perhaps it was an escort patrol of sorts. Not a task for any self respecting soldier... in any war.

Done by the British Army for well over 300 years.
It was never called a "presence" patrol, but patrolling in as part of security operations is normal military activity. It is nothing new. The Romans did it.

Now I do not doubt that today, some armies do it very badly. That is not a reason not to do it well, and in general terms there is usually an operational demand for it.

Actually escorting civilians requires considerable skill and training. The death of Paula Lloyd is worth studying in that regard, as are many other incidents.

[Infanteer]

I don't understand where the sentiment that "presence patrolling" is counter-productive to effective warfighting.

When we went out, all patrols were treated as an advance to contact and concepts such as good positions for fire and bounding overwatch (or, doctrinally, mutual support) were always employed. At night, for ambushes and OPs, good patrol discipline and deception were utilized as best possible. Orders were given and rehearsals and actions on were conducted.

In the conduct of the patrol, patrol discipline was maintained while the patrol's posture reflected the environment - sneaking around with camouflage and leopard crawling in the day would likely get one laughed at by the legion of kids that would descend on your "warfighting" patrol; generally, when the insurgents aren't active there are people everywhere in Southern Afghanistan. Most of the effective intelligence was gathered by being overt and talking to people as opposed to being covert and looking for AVF markings. Just because we do one doesn't mean we flush the other.

All our patrolling was exercised just how we learned it - fighting against templated Eastern Bloc foes in the prairies of Canada.

Anyways, sorry for the tangent, but I don't buy Fuchs point about counterproductive tactics in Afghanistan (unless leadership lets it) - but I do buy his theory of too much weight is no good.

[Chris jM]

Originally Posted by Infanteer

I don't understand where the sentiment that "presence patrolling" is counter-productive to effective warfighting.

When we went out, all patrols were treated as an advance to contact and concepts such as good positions for fire and bounding overwatch (or, doctrinally, mutual support) were always employed. At night, for ambushes and OPs, good patrol discipline and deception were utilized as best possible. Orders were given and rehearsals and actions on were conducted...

By your description I'd prefer to describe your patrol as a clear task over presence. I have a deep hatred of 'presence patrolling' as it implies you can achieve your mission by simply being in an area. That can allow for units to achieve their task without actually effecting the enemy, terrain or civil population. Presence is very important but it shouldn't be a task as such. Clear an area, screen an area, guard an area/ feature, interdict eny infiltration, conduct a meeting - these are all tasks that involve ones' presence as a prerequisite of success, granted, but the actual task should be focussed on achieving an effect. If you want to dominate a route by overtly sitting on a hill and watching who moves along it, good for you. But the mission shouldn't be 'sit somewhere and be seen' as presence patrolling implies.

I'm not saying your patrolling was ineffective - your unit was obviously professional enough to patrol effectively regardless of the lack of direction inherent to a presence patrol and commanders no doubt decided upon an effect they wanted to have upon the enemy/ civilians/ terrain. However 'presence' in my opinion is bad practice and incompetence can be defended under its guise.

Kiwigrunt - Agreed.

[William F. Owen]

Originally Posted by Chris jM

By your description I'd prefer to describe your patrol as a clear task over presence. I have a deep hatred of 'presence patrolling' as it implies you can achieve your mission by simply being in an area.

OK, drifting well off topic here - time for a new one?

I agree. I have no idea where the idea came from, in terms of "just being there." It was and is always was part of the conduct of security operations, and, in terms of the UK, the primary mission of the patrol was never related to "being present."

Like many apparently simple military things, there are clearly many who do not get it. Myself and an extremely experienced British Army Major (11 tours in NI!) tried explaining this to the Royal Thai Army at their COIN seminar. By the questions that followed, some clearly didn't get it. Translation may have been as issue, but only partly. I have seen the same short fall with others.

[Infanteer]

Originally Posted by Chris jM

By your description I'd prefer to describe your patrol as a clear task over presence. I have a deep hatred of 'presence patrolling' as it implies you can achieve your mission by simply being in an area.

Presence patrol merely defined the posture. All these patrols were reconnaissance patrols and when I gave orders for the patrol, I included any area, route or point objectives. The task was to conduct an area/route/point recce.

[Ken White]

otherwise tasked (raid, ambush, snatch, meeting, etc.) always a reconnaissance patrol. It is in fact a reconnaissance and presence patrol or operation as well even if a 'combat' mission is the stated purpose. Information gathering plus area (area, not spot...) knowledge and dominance are combat constants, or should be. That applies in conventional and irregular warfare.

Conversely, a reconnaissance patrol is not universally a presence patrol -- but it is simply that as often or more than not.

Add to that, 'everything is training is everything.' Training does not cease in combat, it should in fact intensify.

Take it a step further -- most irregular forces and many conventional forces will not attack people that look and act like they know what they're doing. Why take on a competent force when you can wait a bit and get another unit that wanders along in a chattering gaggle, is unaware of what goes on around them and is not prepared to fight as if they know how to do so...

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Infanteer

Presence patrol merely defined the posture. All these patrols were reconnaissance patrols...

What exactly were you reconnoitering?

[Chris jM]

Originally Posted by Infanteer

Presence patrol merely defined the posture. All these patrols were reconnaissance patrols and when I gave orders for the patrol, I included any area, route or point objectives. The task was to conduct an area/route/point recce.

Why label a type of patrol by the posture, the means your using to achieve your goal, rather than the goal, objective or ends of the patrol itself? The posture could change - maybe you see something and want to observe it covertly, for example. Does your 'presence patrol' then fail because your presence is no longer overt?

I don't think this is needless or nugatory semantics I'm pulling you up on. I do think the label of 'presence' in front of patrolling is (as I stated prior) misaligned with expressing an effective commander's intent necessary for mission command and a very easy shield for mediocrity and poor ideas to hide behind.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Chris jM

I have a deep hatred of 'presence patrolling' as it implies you can achieve your mission by simply being in an area.

Based on the following definition of a presence patrol I agree: "a patrol conducted for the purpose of reminding people that there is a military presence in the area" (source)

Can't find anything online about Brit doctrine but found this on the US: "Presence patrols conduct a special form of reconnaissance, normally during stability or civil support operations."

From FM 3-21.8

Presence Patrols

9-136. A presence patrol is used in stability or civil support operations. It has many purposes, but should always see and be seen, but seen in a specific manner determined by the commander. Its primary goal is to gather information about the conditions in the unit’s AO. To do this, the patrol gathers critical (as determined by the commander) information, both specific and general. The patrol seeks out this information, and then observes and reports. Its secondary role is to be seen as a tangible representation of the U.S. military force, projecting an image that furthers the accomplishment of the commander’s intent.

9-137. In addition to reconnaissance tasks, presence patrols demonstrate to the local populace the presence and intent of the U.S. forces. Presence patrols are intended to clearly demonstrate the determination, competency, confidence, concern, and when appropriate, the overwhelming power of the force to all who observe it, including local and national media.

9-138. The commander always plans for the possibility that a presence patrol may make enemy contact, even though that is not his intent. Rarely should a commander use a presence patrol where enemy contact is likely. Presence patrols work best for some types of stability operations such as peace operations, humanitarian and civic assistance, non-combatant evacuations, or shows of force. Before sending out a presence patrol, the commander should carefully consider what message he wants to convey, and then clearly describe his intent to the patrol leader.

9-139. To accomplish the “to be seen” part of its purpose, a presence patrol reconnoiters overtly. It takes deliberate steps to visibly reinforce the impression the commander wants to convey to the populace. Where the patrol goes, what it does there, how it handles its weapons, what equipment and vehicles it uses, and how it interacts with the populace are all part of that impression. When the presence patrol returns to the main body, the commander thoroughly debriefs it; not only for hard information, but also for the patrol leader's impressions of the effects of the patrol on the populace. This allows the commander to see to modify the actions of subsequent patrols.

Emphasis mine.

It seems obvious that the presence patrol has been all "dressed up" to replace patrol activity which would be generated if there was any real intel flowing or there was the prerequisite skills level for small teams to locate the Taliban as a prelude to offensive action. The plot has been lost.

By all means send militias and auxiliary forces to escort government officials, census takers, veterinarians, water engineers etc etc but don't use "proper" soldiers for this time wasting activity unless you want to hide one or two men in with the militia to physically recce a route for later infiltration.

[JMA]

Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt

Maybe the last few posts should pop over to this thread. A lot has been discussed there.

You are probably correct and you would have noted that those pro these presence patrols seem to believe that youngsters (out of London and New York city) on a short tour of Afghanistan have the necessary skills to pick up the subtle often nuanced changes in the routine of village life which may provide a battle indication or other. Not clever.

Been there done that, if you are watching something then you better know enough to be able to interpret what you see. Not happening.