What is presence patrolling?

[Ken White]

otherwise tasked (raid, ambush, snatch, meeting, etc.) always a reconnaissance patrol. It is in fact a reconnaissance and presence patrol or operation as well even if a 'combat' mission is the stated purpose. Information gathering plus area (area, not spot...) knowledge and dominance are combat constants, or should be. That applies in conventional and irregular warfare.

Conversely, a reconnaissance patrol is not universally a presence patrol -- but it is simply that as often or more than not.

Add to that, 'everything is training is everything.' Training does not cease in combat, it should in fact intensify.

Take it a step further -- most irregular forces and many conventional forces will not attack people that look and act like they know what they're doing. Why take on a competent force when you can wait a bit and get another unit that wanders along in a chattering gaggle, is unaware of what goes on around them and is not prepared to fight as if they know how to do so...

[Chris jM]

otherwise tasked (raid, ambush, snatch, meeting, etc.) always a reconnaissance patrol. It is in fact a reconnaissance and presence patrol or operation as well even if a 'combat' mission is the stated purpose. Information gathering plus area (area, not spot...) knowledge and dominance are combat constants, or should be. That applies in conventional and irregular warfare.

Conversely, a reconnaissance patrol is not universally a presence patrol -- but it is simply that as often or more than not.

Imperfect definitions, evidently. While I agree with your later quote (excluded) that 'training is everything...' I don't think that your first point, that any of your above points excuse or justify the poor 'presence patrolling' philosophy.

Doctrine claims we have two types of patrols: Fighting/Combat and Reconnaissance. This isn't a very intuitive type of categorization as a fighting patrol can be a reconnaissance patrol.

I think we'd be better off looking at two types of patrols - overt and covert. Both are fundamentally different approaches, with equipment and TTPs changing between the two types. However these types of patrols are only the means to an end. Evidentially you cannot patrol to 'be covert' or 'be overt', but rather to achieve an effect.

This might make me appear confused and that I am arguing against anyone conducting a presence patrol initially, then saying that we should replace the fighting/recce patrol with the overt(another word for presence)/covert category. What I'm trying to point out is that overt presence is a means to an end. Achieving your process isn't necessarily going to be productive or helpful - applying your process to achieve a goal may be. Re-aligning how we classify our two main methods of patrolling tasks would assist in this delineation.

[Ken White]

I don't think that your first point, that any of your above points excuse or justify the poor 'presence patrolling' philosophy.

That it's poor that is. I don't think the philosophy is poor, though the verbiage used to posit the idea in some manuals is absolutely dangerous.

The so-called 'Presence' patrol is designed to make contact with the locals in an IW environment, showing the flag as it were. However, what such patrols are really doing is demonstrating area dominance -- "we own this patch of ground" (for the moment at least) and if rarely challenged, they establish de facto dominance a majority of the time. What they should also be doing, more importantly, is gathering information (on all the METT-TC factors) and that information MUST be fed into the system, be analyzed and collated and placed into perspective. Changes to the information are critical as they indicate tends and give warning of opponent intentions. That's why the US established Company Intelligence cells in Iraq -- to collate and use that information. It is noteworthy that no one (to my knowledge) advocates presence patrols in mid intensity warfare or for major combat operations.

Those last, BTW, are the reason Armies exist. The COIN stupidity and IW are the realm of Paramilitary Police and US Special Forces / SAS like organizations respectively. So armies in real wars conduct combat patrols to complete designated missions and reconnaissance patrols to insure they do not get surprised or to gather specific information for future action (that's why I say the 'presence' patrol should usually be and often is a reconnaissance patrol; it's also to avoid surprises and gather information for future action...).

JMA made the very valid point that sending kids from London or New York City -- or Auckland -- bombing about in Afghanistan with little cultural awareness or language skill is pointless. He's absolutely correct. that's why we generally avoid doing it by ALWAYS going with local forces (preferably) or at a minimum interpreters who can provide the cultural and translation factor capability.

Doctrine claims we have two types of patrols: Fighting/Combat and Reconnaissance. This isn't a very intuitive type of categorization as a fighting patrol can be a reconnaissance patrol.

Not intuitive to you perhaps, most people don't seem to have a problem with it. Recall also that the terms spring from conventional war roots where the parameters are quite different from low intensity COIN and FID.

Fighting patrols do reconnaissance or should and reconnaissance patrols can and do fight. The categorization is predicated on the primary mission of the patrol. I have been on reconnaissance patrols that were looking for and found a fight, conversely, I've been on combat patrols that inadvertently had no fight but returned with much good info.

I think we'd be better off looking at two types of patrols - overt and covert. Both are fundamentally different approaches, with equipment and TTPs changing between the two types. However these types of patrols are only the means to an end. Evidentially you cannot patrol to 'be covert' or 'be overt', but rather to achieve an effect.

METT-TC. Whether the patrol is for fighting or just reconnaissance, overt or covert, in a major conventional conflict or an irregular war, METT-TC applies.

This might make me appear confused and that I am arguing against anyone conducting a presence patrol initially, then saying that we should replace the fighting/recce patrol with the overt(another word for presence)/covert category...

Uh, no, not confused, you just want a new name. Okay with me.

What I'm trying to point out is that overt presence is a means to an end.

Why, yes it is. It is also an opportunity to train and to gather information -- THAT is the purpose of the patrol and presence is simply a synergistic and beneficial effect.

Achieving your process isn't necessarily going to be productive or helpful - applying your process to achieve a goal may be.

I'm unsure I understand all I know about that statement. I have absolutely no idea how one 'achieves' a process. I can apply a process, I can achieve a goal; ideally I do the former to reach the latter.

If you mean using a reconnaissance patrol to gather information and at the same time establish presence, then I agree. If you mean using a combat patrol to accomplish an action or task and at the same time letting the opposition and the neighbors know you're there, then I agree. Beyond that, I'm confoosed... Recall, I'm old.

Re-aligning how we classify our two main methods of patrolling tasks would assist in this delineation.

You may be correct but I'm skeptical. I've seen too many 'covert' patrols get discovered (my LRS kid in Desert Storm got spotted by a six year old kid with Goats -- and a dog... ) and too many overt patrols accomplish little or nothing.

We now categorize patrols by intended function, combat or reconnaissance, that based on years of experience in major combat operations. You seem to want to categorize them by movement methodology. I'm not certain there's much benefit there. Probably not enough to rewrite most of the relevant manuals, doctrine and training materials in the west...

[Infanteer]

Why label a type of patrol by the posture, the means your using to achieve your goal, rather than the goal, objective or ends of the patrol itself? The posture could change - maybe you see something and want to observe it covertly, for example. Does your 'presence patrol' then fail because your presence is no longer overt?

I don't think this is needless or nugatory semantics I'm pulling you up on. I do think the label of 'presence' in front of patrolling is (as I stated prior) misaligned with expressing an effective commander's intent necessary for mission command and a very easy shield for mediocrity and poor ideas to hide behind.

....because....

The so-called 'Presence' patrol is designed to make contact with the locals in an IW environment, showing the flag as it were. However, what such patrols are really doing is demonstrating area dominance -- "we own this patch of ground" (for the moment at least) and if rarely challenged, they establish de facto dominance a majority of the time. What they should also be doing, more importantly, is gathering information (on all the METT-TC factors) and that information MUST be fed into the system, be analyzed and collated and placed into perspective. Changes to the information are critical as they indicate tends and give warning of opponent intentions. That's why the US established Company Intelligence cells in Iraq -- to collate and use that information. It is noteworthy that no one (to my knowledge) advocates presence patrols in mid intensity warfare or for major combat operations.

Couldn't have said it much better. I don't get hung up on these terms too much. When I tell my NCOs that I wanted an area recce of the village of X with a presence in the village after evening prayers, it layed out my intent. I would conduct presence patrols because my mission was to "secure the population". The "presence", as Ken aptly described, defines both a reconnaissance part ("Hey, the local mullah told us this while we were in the village") and a combat part ("Anyone want a shot at the title?") It says "Hey a-----e, you say this is your village, but I'll come and go as I please".

[Ken White]

....because.... It says "Hey a-----e, you say this is your village, but I'll come and go as I please".

and that's really important...

In COIN or FID, initiating fighting contacts more often than your opponent is important but gathering and applying voluminous and current intel on the AO and the people is more important.

Proving you can come and go as you please is even more important.

[Kiwigrunt]

He he, I’m following this battle of semantics with interest. Just want to add that in Timor we referred to them as ‘blue hat’ and ‘green hat’ patrols. That’s not in any manual but everyone got the point.

[William F. Owen]

He he, I’m following this battle of semantics with interest. Just want to add that in Timor we referred to them as ‘blue hat’ and ‘green hat’ patrols. That’s not in any manual but everyone got the point.

Useful. Good point.

[JMA]

When I tell my NCOs that I wanted an area recce of the village of X with a presence in the village after evening prayers, it layed out my intent. I would conduct presence patrols because my mission was to "secure the population". The "presence", as Ken aptly described, defines both a reconnaissance part ("Hey, the local mullah told us this while we were in the village") and a combat part ("Anyone want a shot at the title?") It says "Hey a-----e, you say this is your village, but I'll come and go as I please".

Yes indeed we are now getting closer to the crux of the matter.

So the mission is to secure the population.

How do you achieve that with a one time pass of a village once a week/once a month having approached over open ground thus giving ample warning of approach and then departing across open ground thus giving the TB the hint as to when its safe to come out again? And having done this walk by will almost certainly not be back for a week or so. So the population in that village is secured for say 30mins? 60 mins? a few hours? ...then thrown to the dogs again. Every villager knows that come nightfall there will be no ISAF in the village and the Taliban can deal with anyone who has spoken to the troops.

These presence patrols serve at best to only marginally "secure the population" and then only for the time troops are physically there. That is probably why the use of Protected Villages has been made in the past.

Covert approach by presence patrols seems difficult given the openness of the terrain in general except for small teams which would hardly constitute a show of force. It was mentioned earlier that such a patrol could lie-up covertly nearby then suddenly "appear" in the village. Not sure the surprise value would be worth the effort certainly as the Taliban do not seem to walk about carrying weapons openly unless they are about to make war.

Lets go back to the mission then. To secure the population.

Given the circumstances on the ground there must surely be an effective way of doing this other than wandering around and "trolling for RPGs"... and IEDs?

[Red Rat]

So the mission is to secure the population.

How do you achieve that with a one time pass of a village once a week/once a month having approached over open ground thus giving ample warning of approach and then departing across open ground thus giving the TB the hint as to when its safe to come out again? And having done this walk by will almost certainly not be back for a week or so. So the population in that village is secured for say 30mins? 60 mins? a few hours? ...then thrown to the dogs again. Every villager knows that come nightfall there will be no ISAF in the village and the Taliban can deal with anyone who has spoken to the troops.

my understanding is that 'presence patrolling' per se (certainly in the British AO) is done frequently each day from locally sited FOBs. It is recognised that if you do not have a permanent presence on the ground then you cannot even begin to assert that you are securing the population.

RR

[William F. Owen]

So the mission is to secure the population.

Some may say that. How sensible does that seem to you?

So the population in that village is secured for say 30mins? 60 mins? a few hours? ...then thrown to the dogs again. Every villager knows that come nightfall there will be no ISAF in the village and the Taliban can deal with anyone who has spoken to the troops.

Exactly. - which is why it is far smarter to question the strategy rather than the tactics.
The problem with the strategy maybe that it cannot be reasonably enabled by the tactics and limitation placed upon those tactics via the policy.

[jcustis]

Some may say that. How sensible does that seem to you?

Exactly. - which is why it is far smarter to question the strategy rather than the tactics.
The problem with the strategy maybe that it cannot be reasonably enabled by the tactics and limitation placed upon those tactics via the policy.

Sooooo...does this pull back the curtain on your emphasis on counter-insurgent activity? Because pop-centric COIN cannot succeed due to the current limitations on coalition forces?

[Chris jM]

.I don't get hung up on these terms too much.

And you probably didn't need to. You could have changed the definitions to the ones I suggest and nothing on the ground would have changed - from what you have told me, it sounds like it was being done right from the word go.

However I am getting hung up on these terms as I've seen (hell, I've been part of the problem) presence patrols justifying inefficiencies bordering on stupidity. I'm loathe to make conclusions based on my experiences as I have not operated against a sophisticated OPFOR - the sharpened mango wars of the South East Pacific wasn't all that demanding - and I remain confident that, if the need drove my defence force, we would have picked our game up. It still doesn't satisfy me that 'presence' is a suitable term.

I myself have been guilty on using 'presence' as a crux for a lack of a tactical appreciation.

I accept that the label 'presence' isn't the root cause of poor patrolling. What it does do, in my opinion and in my experience, is shield incompetency and inefficiencies. Get rid of the presence label and some shortcomings would be revealed, allowing the real causes (training, proper campaign planning and the maintenance of mission command) to be properly rectified.

[Chris jM]

The so-called 'Presence' patrol is designed to make contact with the locals in an IW environment, showing the flag as it were. However, what such patrols are really doing is demonstrating area dominance -- "we own this patch of ground" (for the moment at least) and if rarely challenged, they establish de facto dominance a majority of the time. What they should also be doing, more importantly, is gathering information (on all the METT-TC factors) and that information MUST be fed into the system, be analyzed and collated and placed into perspective. Changes to the information are critical as they indicate tends and give warning of opponent intentions. That's why the US established Company Intelligence cells in Iraq -- to collate and use that information. It is noteworthy that no one (to my knowledge) advocates presence patrols in mid intensity warfare or for major combat operations.

Two points here:

1 - if I had to 'demonstrate dominance' it could be tactically applied as a clearing patrol, you could secure an area for a period, you could disrupt an enemy force from an area, you could deny a threat group access, etc etc. Which leads me to:

2 - If your not going to do it in mid to high intensity warfare, why then do it at the lower level as a doctrinal undertaking? If my service went into a mid-level conflict environment, the presence patrolling concept would not get hung up but would stay as baggage as that is what has been taught, practiced and reinforced. The lessons would be learnt quickly but that's not the point (or perhaps it is the point - if we can learn the lessons now, when men aren't losing lives, the better off we are). Tactical task verbs (the ends) apply to all intensities of military operations, the means will change METT-TC dependent. I see 'presence patrolling' as a means elevated to an ends, and for the reasons outlined above I don't like it.

So armies in real wars conduct combat patrols to complete designated missions and reconnaissance patrols to insure they do not get surprised or to gather specific information for future action (that's why I say the 'presence' patrol should usually be and often is a reconnaissance patrol; it's also to avoid surprises and gather information for future action...).

Good point, I wish someone had explained it this way to me before.

It is also an opportunity to train and to gather information -- THAT is the purpose of the patrol and presence is simply a synergistic and beneficial effect.

I don't know if I'm arguing over or around you as I'm in agreement with 90% of what your saying. Yes, presence is synergistic and beneficial so why define your patrol by it's second-order effect? If it's a clearance patrol then clear - and if you need to be overt for reasons of 'presence' in order to do so inside the COIN environment, go ahead.

We now categorize patrols by intended function, combat or reconnaissance, that based on years of experience in major combat operations. You seem to want to categorize them by movement methodology. I'm not certain there's much benefit there. Probably not enough to rewrite most of the relevant manuals, doctrine and training materials in the west...

I like the 'overt/covert' classification but that's an armchair perspective with no supporting experience. I agree with your point made elsewhere that it may be tomatoes/tomatos - it's the same thing and you can call it what you want but doing it well is the problem.


My main point on presence patrolling remains, and I'm interested in the counter-views (what can I say, I'm a sucker for punishment ).

[Ken White]

If your not going to do it in mid to high intensity warfare, why then do it at the lower level as a doctrinal undertaking?

Because it serves an important psychological function on the local populace and on the opposition in such conflicts. That benefit disappears in higher order conflicts.

If my service went into a mid-level conflict environment, the presence patrolling concept would not get hung up but would stay as baggage as that is what has been taught, practiced and reinforced. The lessons would be learnt quickly but that's not the point (or perhaps it is the point - if we can learn the lessons now, when men aren't losing lives, the better off we are).

Very valid point, applies to the US also and it impugns senior people, not the troops. My belief is that most people will not succumb to that very human failure.

Tactical task verbs (the ends) apply to all intensities of military operations, the means will change METT-TC dependent. I see 'presence patrolling' as a means elevated to an ends, and for the reasons outlined above I don't like it.

I somewhat agree but, like Infanteer, think the terminology is mostly irrelevant (while acknowledging that there will be some that hang their hats on the issue...). A 'presence' patrol is mostly a reconnaissance that also serves, secondarily, the canine function of marking all the trees in your AO.

Yes, presence is synergistic and beneficial so why define your patrol by it's second-order effect? If it's a clearance patrol then clear - and if you need to be overt for reasons of 'presence' in order to do so inside the COIN environment, go ahead.

Because Doctrine writers make misteaks?

...it's the same thing and you can call it what you want but doing it well is the problem.

That's all that counts...

[davidbfpo]

Moderator's Note

I have moved the last four posts to the UK & Afghanistan thread, where they should be and not here - a more general debate on presence patrolling. On that thread the posts are No's. 412-415. Hopefully this thread reads OK still.

[Red Rat]

but I hope not The discussion is revolving around what are presence patrols and what they are used for. While Presence Patrols is a widely used term it is not reflected in UK doctrine and patrols are still classed as recce, fighting or standing patrols and all the tasks I have seen on this thread would be covered under any of these three headings. The fact that 'presence patrols' as a term is used so widely without being defined in doctrine (if definition is needed) probably explains the confusion!

[Infanteer]

Two points here:

1 - if I had to 'demonstrate dominance' it could be tactically applied as a clearing patrol, you could secure an area for a period, you could disrupt an enemy force from an area, you could deny a threat group access, etc etc. Which leads me to
....
Tactical task verbs (the ends) apply to all intensities of military operations, the means will change METT-TC dependent. I see 'presence patrolling' as a means elevated to an ends, and for the reasons outlined above I don't like it.

To clear, to disrupt, and to deny all imply certain things that may or may not involve talking to locals (if they are present). If I send out a presence patrol and it doesn't talk to people (or isn't clearly visible), then it fails (re: no pee on the tree). I don't believe there is a mission task verb for "go talk to the locals". I'd guess another "doctrinal fit" would be contact patrols that seek to find and retain contact with an enemy force; but again, that has its own implications.

Just because it isn't in doctrine doesn't mean it isn't "real" - perhaps the doctrine guys are not up with the times. I have a feeling we are trying to squeeze 10 pounds of #### in a 5 pound bag here.

Presence patrolling is a natural condition of military superiority. I'll bet everybody back to the Romans did it. Presence patrols are likely required in conventional, "high-intensity" (I prefer "high-density") conflicts in the rear areas (think German-occupied Russia, Yugoslavia, and France).

[slapout9]

I'll bet everybody back to the Romans did it.

They certainly did. Before we had what are seen as modern police departments the Patrol function was performed by soldiers and to this day most police departments divided up their patrol sectors based upon the concept of how the Romans divided up their Military Districts, in the south many are still called patrol districts as opposed to beats or sectors or zones or precincts.

[JMA]

Presence patrolling is a natural condition of military superiority. I'll bet everybody back to the Romans did it. Presence patrols are likely required in conventional, "high-intensity" (I prefer "high-density") conflicts in the rear areas (think German-occupied Russia, Yugoslavia, and France).

Compared to the front line intensity the rear areas were certainly not "high-intensity" by any stretch of the imagination. A few partisans, a little sabotage... maybe.

We are not sure exactly what the Romans did are we? The ROE the Romans used would mean that the people either groveled or fled.