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

[MikeF]

Maybe I'm just guilty of applying Occam's Razor too severely, but that just seems to fit into the "Clear" for me - you gotta know what you're clearing out first. I say this as I've seen "Define" added to the "COIN phase-orama-looks-real-good-on-a-slide" acronym as something you do before you "Shape" and "Clear".

I'm more of a KISS principle guy and all of this detracts from the simplicity of removing an overt insurgent presence from an area, protecting it against a relapse, and then building local capacity to deal with future threats and subversion. Clear, Hold and Build represents that to me; someone said on these forums that we get too stuck in phases and don't recognize these activities as "indicators of what my enemy is doing" but instead stick to them as some arbitrary milestone to victory(TM).

Defining and shaping are implied tasks of the whole fight - something you should be doing at all times of the small wars fight. The enemy is going to change, especially after you move forces into an area, attack his network, and start attacking his legitimacy in the eyes of the locals.

...as well, the natural way of fighting in Afghanistan makes the whole idea of phases very hard and borderline useless; perhaps a better model that addresses the ebb and flow of the summer fighting season would be more useful. You may be clearing in July what you held and built in February; one should never make assessments on where you're at in this country during the winter.

Infanteer,

I believe it was Bob's World that made the comment

"that we get too stuck in phases and don't recognize these activities as "indicators of what my enemy is doing" but instead stick to them as some arbitrary milestone to victory."

I distinctly remember that post and it stuck with me for a bit. I agree or at least can relate to much of what your saying so I don't think our views are too off. I'll attempt to readdress some of your points for clarity.

I'm more of a KISS principle guy.

Totally agree for an operations order. I've never giving an order that could not be dictacted through radio transmissions. In fact, probably 70% of all orders that I've ever given were on the radio. Clear and concise; however, IMO, design and the orders process is different. When we are intellectually lazy, then we come up with stupid soundbites like "speed kills" that minimize the greater challenges that we will face. During the problem solving phase, the questions are broad and complex, and we must tackle difficult courses of action IOT come up with a simple plan.

I say this as I've seen "Define" added to the "COIN phase-orama-looks-real-good-on-a-slide" acronym as something you do before you "Shape" and "Clear".

I honestly don't care for cool slides that look good. I've been working with presentations that provide "Aha" moments to junior leaders. Things that work.

Defining and shaping are implied tasks of the whole fight.

If that works for you, then great. From my experience, the US Army oftentimes does not take the time to do detailed and considerable reconnaissance. These implied task become assumed task, and we know what happens when you assume . I simply like to use "shape" first because it reminds one to attempt to define and understand the environment before jumping in.

something you should be doing at all times of the small wars fight.

Agreed as I said in my previous post, "which remains simultaneous in later efforts." You're always doing recon and surveillance IOT to guage the enemy and populace reactions to your actions.

I hope this clarifies my position to some degree.

v/r

Mike