IW and Stability Operations - in your own words - what is the difference?

[Rank amateur]

You've just gotten it totally backwards -- you're the one advocating population control. As you said above and I again quote:You said that, I didn't.

Stability negates the need for control.

I don't. Kilcullen does.

The key activity is to stand up viable local security forces in partnership with Iraqi Army and Police, as well as political and economic programs, to permanently secure them.

them = the population in an area.

Stability is not the key activity. Again, according to Kilcullen. Of course, I'm just a amateur theorist, talking about COIN theory. That's all I can do. But if you want to convince me personally that the theory doesn't work in reality, you'll need to come up with a better example than the successes of Vietnam. (I could be wrong, but I'm not accepting anything there as successful.) Besides I seem to remember you saying that Vietnam was fought as a land battle not a counter insurgency.

In an ideal situation, that would happen -- what do you do if, as in both the Philippines and Malaya, the bad guys are sort of 'on again - off again?' Do you start 'stabilizing' when they slack off --and then stop when a few of them stir up hate and discontent in one small area of the country?

Works for me. (You only stop in that one small area. Just like a platoon can temporarily retreat while the brigade is advancing.) It doesn't mean that my definition is wrong - or that Kilcullen is wrong - it just means that COIN is a lot harder in practice than theory.

The Armed forces don't want to 'control' (though that's a bad word if you'll give it some thought)

I agree but that's what the experts say is necessary. (According to Google the word Kilcullen and population control is on the net 281 times)

I'm saying you cannot do what you suggest.

That why I am highly skeptical of our ability to win in Iraq, even if we adopt a new field manual and a new strategy.

I'm sorry but I truly do not understand what you're trying to say here. Could you amplify that a bit?

Just because some people are sleeping and some are awake, doesn't mean they're the same thing. Just because some are doing stability and some are fighting doesn't mean they're the same thing. (Which goes back to the original argument - way back when - that my definition must be wrong becaise I define them as two separate things, but they can't be people are doing them at the same time.) So, my definition could be wrong, but if it is it's not because they are both happening at the same time.

Thirdly, if you go into full combat only mode -- as we did in Iraq early on -- all you'll do is antagonize the relatives of those you kill

Right, but according to the theory, if you control the population the relatives can't pick up arms, or at least the ones that do end up dead.

Stability negates the need for control.

I believe this is what we tried in Iraq for the first few years. Rebuild the economy, turn the lights on, everything will stabilize, people will stop shooting at us because they're happy. Didn't work.

Maybe Dr. Metz can jump in, but I believe this is more or less the belief that he felt needed to be changed when he started writing about COIN in 2004. (Don't worry steve. I'll still buy your book if you tell me am completely out to lunch.)

I'd be really interested to know what you propose to do to make sure the violence doesn't come back. Seriously.

When I was in grade 7, I bloodied a kid's nose. No one bothered me again. Once people know they can't hide in the population they are easily deterews by "the visible presence of kinetic weapons and a demonstration of the will to use them if necessary."