Quote Originally Posted by Michael C View Post
The belief that insurgencies or irregular forces require the support of the population is the foundation of the FM 3-24, Maoist doctrine and most counter-insurgency theory. Even if not the support of the whole population, at least some level of support from the population is required to hide the logistical and leadership support of irregular forces.
So what percentage of support are we talking about, and is that willing consent or coerced consent? If the premise of FM3-24 is as you describe then it is deeply flawed and has not read deeply into the history of irregular warfare. The very fact they call it "COIN" should act as a warning

Mr. Owen describes targer-centric COIN. I call that the lethal, kinetic or traditional approach. In the article "Kill Company," COL Steele absolutely argues for this approach to COIN. He says clearly that his BDE will win if "they get violent the fastest."
If you want to state what I am describing, then please describe it correctly. I in no way condone the idiotic approach exemplified by the article. Being British and not American, I've dealt with COIN since basic training, so please don't tarnsih me with the same brush as those who stumbled across COIN just a couple of years ago.

Warfare is a struggle between two armed groups. One armed group is required to overcome the other. Killing the right people enables that. Killing the wrong people is almost always counter-productive. Until you reduce the enemy's ability to constrain your freedom of action, you can't do any of the so called hearts and minds stuff, which should be focussed on creating a hostile environment for the enemy! - not just a nice environment for the locals!

Hope that helps.