Quote Originally Posted by Infanteer View Post
I don't understand where the sentiment that "presence patrolling" is counter-productive to effective warfighting.

When we went out, all patrols were treated as an advance to contact and concepts such as good positions for fire and bounding overwatch (or, doctrinally, mutual support) were always employed. At night, for ambushes and OPs, good patrol discipline and deception were utilized as best possible. Orders were given and rehearsals and actions on were conducted...
By your description I'd prefer to describe your patrol as a clear task over presence. I have a deep hatred of 'presence patrolling' as it implies you can achieve your mission by simply being in an area. That can allow for units to achieve their task without actually effecting the enemy, terrain or civil population. Presence is very important but it shouldn't be a task as such. Clear an area, screen an area, guard an area/ feature, interdict eny infiltration, conduct a meeting - these are all tasks that involve ones' presence as a prerequisite of success, granted, but the actual task should be focussed on achieving an effect. If you want to dominate a route by overtly sitting on a hill and watching who moves along it, good for you. But the mission shouldn't be 'sit somewhere and be seen' as presence patrolling implies.

I'm not saying your patrolling was ineffective - your unit was obviously professional enough to patrol effectively regardless of the lack of direction inherent to a presence patrol and commanders no doubt decided upon an effect they wanted to have upon the enemy/ civilians/ terrain. However 'presence' in my opinion is bad practice and incompetence can be defended under its guise.

Kiwigrunt - Agreed.