Sanctuary (or perhaps just area) denial operations at the Afghanistan village level

[Bob's World]

I am currently stationed in Iraq where I am advising the Iraq Department of Border Enforcement. Among my peers we have had numerous discussions in regards to denial/interdiction operations. Obviously we want to stop the flow of foreign fighters and outside influences into the country. One of the questions we posed was what; is our current doctrine in regards denial/interdiction operations. After much time researching this topic very little doctrine exists; David Galula states in his book, Counterinsurgency and Doctrine,
“Every country is divided for administrative and military purposes into provinces, counties, districts, zones, etc. The border areas are a permanent source of weakness for the counterinsurgent whatever his administrative structures, and his advantage is usually exploited by the insurgent, especially in the initial violent stages of the insurgency. By moving from one side of the border to the other, the insurgent is often able to escape pressure or, at least, to complicate operations for his opponent.”
The only doctrine I have been able to find is FM 31-55 Border Security and Anti-Infiltration Operations written in 1968. It is currently out of print and I ordered it through Amazon.com. Since then new doctrine has been written. But very little has been written on border and anti-infiltration operations. In the early 1980 the Low Intensity Conflict FM came out, I am not sure of its number. In 1986 Counter-Guerrilla Operations FM 90-8 dedicated about four paragraphs to the topic of securing the borders. FM s 3-24 and 3-24.2 discuss very little about border operations. They state the obvious that securing the borders is important. FM 3-07 Stability Operations makes reference to securing borers, but does not provide a guide to developing a plan to secure the borders. So the point of my post is where is the doctrine and why have we allowed ourselves to become so far behind in this topic.

Any law that constrains that actions of those enforcing the law, but enables the actions of those violating the law is clearly a problem. This is exactly what borders are.

In Vietnam we hand built an insurgent sanctuary by creating the state of North Vietnam; let alone allowing the use of Cambodia and Laos relatively free from attack.

Similarly the Durand line is a matter that must be effectively dealt with between the governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the West if there is to be any hope in working toward an enduring solution. It means nothing to the Pashtun people; it is a constant source of irritation to Afghanistan; and a critical national interest to sustain for Pakistan; and the primary sources of legal status sancuary for Taliban insurgents and AQ UW operators. This can only be settled at a conference table by senior diplomats and leaders, and due to the many divergent interests will require some very creative statecraft. Someone order up some creative senior people for State.