General counter-insurgency

Knightraptor

Active member
I have tried searching for this subject, but I have trouble condensing it into short terms so I may have just overlooked it.

It's started as a simple pondering of the birds-eye view of the strategy in counter-insurgency in Iraq. I noticed that the US (don't know about the others) were focusing on securing the large centers of power in each province. I, along with everyone else, noticed that when they did make it relatively secure, the insurgents would just leave for a while then trickle back in. In the distant past this approach worked because on most occasions the victor (rebel or not) was the side with the most men and/or the most resources. Seizing centers of power took both of these away and only very skillful rebels or dumb occupiers could prevail against those odds.

But now when weaponry is readily available outside major centers of power, and numerical advantages are no longer that significant unless one side is several orders of magnitude larger, would it not be at least as effective to try a different birds eye approach.

By taking and building up the easily-securable small towns and village a few at a time until only the large centers of power were left, the rebels/insurgents/etc. would have no where to run to. Each of the smaller towns/villages would be completely built up before moving on(power, water, schools, etc.). A proper police force trained, military units trained. Granted it would take a much longer time but would it work any better?
 
Back
Top