???
Originally Posted by William F. Owen
No, the objective is for the Governance of a particular populace to gain a better understanding and empathy for the concerns of their own populace; and to rededicate themselves to meeting those needs.
The insurgency and the insurgent are merely symptoms that come in many flavors. As you say popualaces are diverse. One can see this in Afghanistan as there are actually multiple insurgencies going on. But they are all in response to the failures of ONE government.
One can chase down all of the many groups that sprout up in response to percptions of poor governance within the various segments of a society; or they can fix the one root cause, the failed government itself. The engagement to work those fixes would then be tailored by the perceptions of the many different communities and populaces involved.
this whole idea of "forcing" and "controlling" strikes to my problems with UK COIN. That last real COIN in the UK was the failed effort against Oliver Cromwell in the 1600s, resulting in the execution of King Charles in 1649.
All subequent "COIN" efforts have been all about maintaining control and legitimacy over the governments of others. That is a very different game altogether. True COIN can only be done by a governemnt within its own borders, with its own populace. Once you take it next door you are doing FID or UW. Current vogue of mixing and merging these concepts is not helpful. States often force controls on the populaces of others, working through governments that they have either placed in power, or at least taken on the role of sustaining in power. THAT IS NOT COIN.
The last US COIN campaign was the government's efforts to resolve the Civil Rights movement in the 1960's.
(Of note, our kinder, gentler approach; rooted in understanding and addressing the legitimate concerns of the insurgent segment of the populace, was much more effective that applied by King Charles in England's last insurgency.)
Bookmarks