Congrats and well-done Niel. Your paper speaks for many commany commanders out there.


Quote Originally Posted by Rank amateur View Post
Can you explain why you used the words "population control" measures when the term "securing the population" seems to be more popular with your colleagues?
I'll take a stab at this to test my knowledge, and y'all can critique if I'm off a bit.

RA,

Simply put, population control is the initial tactic one takes to ultimately achieving the desired endstate of "securing the population." The most descriptive example of population control existed in the Malaysia insurgency.

Population control can be achieved through movement controls (roadblocks, T-walls, curfews and restrictions on mounted and dismounted movement) and food-restriction measures (an extreme illegal measure of coersive incentives i.e. you help the insurgents then you don't eat).

Population control is used as a measure refered to in the COIN manual to "stop the bleeding." It is not happy nor nice, but it maybe necessary in extreme situations (i.e. Iraq circa late 2006/early 2007).

The effects of population control assert government control in an area, restrict an insurgents ability to maneuver and communicate, and it limits the enemies' ability to resupply people, guns, money, etc...All in all, it make life suck for everybody.

Coupled with intensive patrolling, intelligence gathering, and amnesty programs, population control can lead the community to feel safer, i.e. perceive that the government is securing the populace. As the populace feels safer, then they are more willing to work for the governmnent to provide information.

As the government gains information on the insurgency, it can degrade the enemy. As the population is secured and the enemy degraded, the government can transition towards stabilization and reconstruction operations.

There you have it. Classical counter-insurgency in a simple blogpost.

v/r

Mike