Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
You are correnct, my apologies.

I am not sure it is dead even in aggressive cases, but I believe aggressive cases require greater attention to what is causing the deeply held convictions that make it an aggressive UW/IW war. Any/all wars amongst the people are fed by something. I would argue that the "something" is a combination of a clearly distinguishable identity that seperates the insurgents from the greater population (or at least the population who controls the power) and a deeply held feeling of injustice. You will have to address one or both of those factors eventually. If you don't, then you just kick the can down the road.
Pop centric has been around for centuries, the terrorist targets the population very publically and the population gets the message, and they cooperate with the terrorist. The idea that ISIS won through a U.S. like pop centric approach is simply wrong headed. By most accounts the ISIS is using pretty severe tactics to coerce the population, while simultaneously some elements are offering a little kindness which most recognize it for what it is.

Pop centric as a strategy in and of itself isn't dead, it never existed in the first place. The population was one aspect of the environment combatants had to manage one way or the other, unfortunately the other way (coercion) tends to work best for rapidly establishing tactical control, and it is very effective at countering the hearts and mind approach, since personal security will normally rank over nice to have items. Still at the end of the day controlling the population through either method is not decisive.