/pnd/ - Politics, News, Debate

1-4. Counterinsurgency is not a substitute for strategy. When counterinsurgents attempt to defeat an insurgency, they perform a range of diverse methods intended to counter an insurgency. Commanders must effectively arrange these diverse methods in time and space to accomplish strategic objectives. The U.S. can use a range of methods to aid a host nation or group in defeating an insurgency. The various combinations of these methods with different levels of resourcing provide the U.S. with a wide range of strategic options to defeat an insurgency. The strategy to counter an insurgency is determined by the ends the U.S. wishes to achieve, the ways it wishes to achieve those ends, and the resources or means it uses to enable those ways. (See paragraphs 1-10 through 1-13 for more information on strategy.)

1-5. There is a spectrum of involvement in countering an insurgency. The U.S. could enable a host nation by not providing forces that are directly involved in securing the population or attacking the insurgents. For example, the U.S. could provide training or intelligence support to a host nation. Moreover, even if the U.S. is directly involved in defeating the insurgency, its primary role can be only to enable a host nation. A host nation may be capable of providing civil control and security. The U.S. commander can integrate a force into the host-nation’s efforts that provides a force to perform direct action or fires provided by airpower or field artillery. U.S. involvement can range from a modest and supporting commitment to a major ground force commitment that may, for a time, take the role of primary counterinsurgent force while host-nation forces become better able to take on that role themselves.

1-6. Ideally, the host nation is the primary actor in defeating an insurgency. Even in an insurgency that occurs in a country with a nonfunctioning central government or after a major conflict, the host nation must eventually provide a solution that is culturally acceptable to its society and meets U.S. policy goals. The conclusion of any counterinsurgency effort is primarily dependent on the host nation and the people who reside in that nation. Ultimately, every society has to provide solutions to its own problems. As such, one of the Army and Marine Corps’ primary roles in counterinsurgency is to enable the host nation.

1-7. A counterinsurgency can occur as part of a major combat operation, but it often occurs without a major conflict. For example, an external threat may sponsor an insurgency, and this could be part of an effort to attain other strategic objectives. As such, the objectives of a counterinsurgency must be contextual to that insurgency. Creating objectives that are relevant to a particular insurgency is essential to defeating that insurgency. Effective counterinsurgency requires clearly defined and obtainable objectives that result in an end state acceptable to the host-nation government, the populace, and the governments providing forces. When the U.S. directly involves itself in a counterinsurgency, stability may be essential…

Although all tasks executed to establish the conditions to reach a desired end state are significant, stability operations may be critical in a counterinsurgency. (The Army understands all operations are made up of offensive, defensive, and stability tasks. See ADRP 3-07 and FM 3-07 for more information on operations focused on stability.)

1-8. The military role should be coordinated with the other instruments of national power that include diplomatic, informational, and economic parts. The Army and Marine Corps are only part of the instruments of national power that the U.S. can use to counter an insurgency. At times, they may be used in a supporting role. For example, Soldiers and Marines may be withdrawn from active counterinsurgency efforts while the U.S. uses other instruments of national power as the primary enablers of a host nation. In such cases, the Army and Marine Corps may play a supporting role by performing security cooperation tasks.

1-9. The Laos insurgency highlights the unique nature of an insurgency. This insurgency took place in the context of Vietnam. Here, internal groups with various interests and outside groups from North Vietnam and the U.S. created a unique context for the Laos insurgency. Moreover, the corrupt and ineffective host government was not able to wage its own counterinsurgency campaign effectively. To effectively counter the insurgency in Laos, the U.S. needed an operational approach that would work in that environment, if a successful operational approach were possible. Unfortunately, U.S. forces failed to create an effective strategy to counter the insurgency in Laos. Thus, the U.S. government failed to find the needed ways and means to meet the policy goal.

The Laos Insurgency

Lamented as “the forgotten war,” the insurgency in Laos was heavily influenced (and often overshadowed) by the conflict in neighboring Vietnam. A victim of geography, half-hearted fighting between the different factions in Laos may well have worked itself out in a lasting compromise if not for pressure from North Vietnamese communists to control areas of Laos for the infiltration of men and materiel into South Vietnam (along the Ho Chi Min trail) and U.S. efforts to oppose communist presence and influence.

Beginning in earnest in 1959, fighting pitted variously rightist Royal Lao forces supported by Hmong guerillas against the leftist Pathet Lao (indigenous communists) and their North Vietnamese supporters. These participants were at times joined by other players, including U.S. advisors, Filipino troops, U.S. air power, Thai commandos and artillery formations, as well as “neutralist” Lao forces. During the period of conflict, Laos was underdeveloped in every way, including its government, its economy, and its military. The government and military were corrupt and ineffective and the economy was wholly dependent on outside support.

As the United States became more invested in Vietnam, it also increased support to Laos; by the end of 1955, the U.S. provided 100% of the Lao military budget.

North Vietnamese backers of the Pathet Lao sought to grow that force, supporting a significant recruiting campaign and sending many of the recruits to North Vietnam for schooling and training. This led to greater investment by the U.S. in materiel and training for government forces, and included, beginning in 1957, efforts to arm Hmong guerillas, who would play an important role later in the conflict. Vietnamese interest in Laos was primarily in securing the so called “panhandle” region, through which the Ho Chi Min trail allowed the North Vietnamese to infiltrate men and materiel into South Vietnam. A secondary consideration was the support of a fellow communist movement (the Pathet Lao). Once fighting began in 1959, the Vietnamese used government chaos to their benefit, increasing attacks on government forces and expanding the territory under their influence or control. During this period, many attacks took the form of North Vietnamese Army regulars attacking and overwhelming a position, and then letting their Pathet Lao allies occupy the area and claim the victory, thus at least paying lip service to maintaining the neutralization of Laos.

These North Vietnamese Army-led attacks and several attempted counterattacks by Royal Laotian Forces against Pathet Lao positions revealed the gross incompetence of the government’s regular forces. This lack of capability stemmed from several sources, including a half-hearted martial tradition in general, a preoccupation with profiteering and political games by the senior leadership, lack of efforts by the French who were responsible for their training until late 1958, and a fundamental lack of motivation. Despite the vigorous efforts of U.S. trainers and millions of dollars in materiel throughout the course of the conflict, Royal Lao Forces would never become a consequential fighting force. In this phase, the only effective forces on the government side were the Hmong tribesmen, trained and provisioned by the Central Intelligence Agency and fighting as guerillas.

International pressure (from the United States as well as from China and Russia preferring to avoid unnecessarily provoking the United States) and support (from the United States and other allies) prevented the complete collapse of the government of Laos in 1962 and pushed for neutralization through a coalition government. The North Vietnamese were content to allow negotiations to take place, as they had succeeded in securing what they needed: the Ho Chi Min trail. After months of wrangling, 1962 finally saw another Geneva agreement, this time for a neutralized Laos with a coalition government representing the three major factions: the rightists, the leftists, and the neutralists. Part of the neutralization agreement included the removal of foreign forces from Laos. While U.S. and allied personnel who had been fighting on the side of the Royal Lao Government were withdrawn from the country, very few of the substantial number of North Vietnamese Army forces withdrew. Nor did the Central Intelligence Agency cease its work with the Hmong.

The new coalition government proved shaky. Turmoil again rocked the Lao government with continued political maneuvering by greedy generals and a string of coups. Military region commanders ran their zones like private fiefdoms, rarely dispatching their troops outside the Mekong River valley. A series of spectacular failures by the Royal Lao forces all but ensured those forces would never seek to take the initiative and act in other than a strictly defensive capacity again. Between 1964 and 1968, the conflict was primarily between the U.S.-supported paramilitaries (backed by U.S. airpower), and the Pathet Lao. The cycle of dry season and wet season, each favoring one side or the other, saw very modest back and forth movement between the two primarily irregular forces, with little change from year to year. That all changed in 1969. The communist dry season offensive of 1968 did not end with the onset of the rainy season, and gains were substantial. In early 1970, the communists seized a provincial capital for the first time, and later that year they seized another.

In the now traditional way, Hmong guerillas counterattacked. However, after nearly a decade of war, the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret army was nearly fought out. Fighting against superior numbers of regular troops, the Hmong became more and more reliant on U.S. airpower and on support from Thai artillery. Bombing in southern Laos expanded such that by 1971, it was more extensive than bombing in South Vietnam and Cambodia combined.

The communist dry season offensive that started in December of 1971 brought extraordinary pressure on the government. For the first time, North Vietnamese Army forces used significant armor, as well as large tube artillery. The Hmong were battered and quickly thrown back. After another year of significant communist gains, the Lao government and its international supporters once again sought a ceasefire.

By the time of the 1973 ceasefire and neutralization, the government of Laos controlled little more than the capital and the Mekong river valley, and that only by virtue of the Hmong and U.S. airpower. With the withdrawal of U.S. support (both airpower and funding) in 1973, the Hmong were demobilized and the Lao government was left to its fate, which was to fall relatively quickly to the communists.

UNITED STATES’ STRATEGY AND POLICY TO COUNTER AN INSURGENCY

1-10. When and how the U.S. government provides assistance to other states to counter an insurgency is a question of policy and strategy. Commanders and staffs should understand that the U.S. can respond with a range of measures, many of which do not directly involve U.S. forces securing the population or performing offensive operations, in a counterinsurgency. This manual provides the reader with information on how counterinsurgents may organize tactical tasks in time and space to reach an end state. It cannot and should not be the only reference to conduct counterinsurgency operations for someone who wishes to fully understand the policy tools available to the U.S. to aid a host nation in fighting a counterinsurgency.

(See JP 3-24, Allied Joint Publication 3.4.4, and the U.S. Government Guide to Counterinsurgency for more information on counterinsurgency policy tools.)

1-11. Effective counterinsurgency operations require an understanding of the military profession. The tasks counterinsurgents perform in countering an insurgency are not unique. It is the organization of these tasks in time and space that is unique. For example, geographic combatant commanders employ theater strategy to align and shape efforts, resources, and tasks to support strategic goals and prepare for conflict and contingencies in their region. In support of this goal, theater strategies normally emphasize security cooperation activities, building partner capacity and force posture, and preparing for contingencies and other tasks those are not unique to counterinsurgency operations. For example, a unit can perform security cooperation tasks in support or not in support of countering an insurgency. (See FM 3-22 for more information on security cooperation tasks.) Those units that carry out security cooperation tasks to support a counterinsurgency should understand security cooperation and the tasks they are performing and teaching. Moreover, they should understand how these tasks are used in defeating an insurgency. Soldiers and Marines must start from a foundation of professional knowledge and competence to have a framework for understanding and aiding a host nation in defeating an insurgency. Whether a unit is directly performing the tasks to defeat an insurgency or indirectly supporting a host nation, this manual provides a doctrinal framework for counterinsurgency operations. However, to be effective, Soldiers and Marines must be professionally competent. This is the foundation in understanding another nation’s or group’s actions to defeat an insurgency and in providing aid to that nation or group. (See ADRP 1 for more information on professional competence.)

1-12. Political leaders and commanders must have a dialogue to decide the optimal strategy to meet the security needs of the U.S and states or groups the U.S. supports. Different capabilities provide different choices that offer different costs and risks. U.S. strategy is defined by how it combines these capabilities (the ways), resources them (the means), and its willingness to accept risk in attaining its policy goals. Commanders inform political leaders about the prospects for victory and the different costs and risks of various options, and political leaders weigh these costs and risks against their importance to U.S. national interests. Once U.S. policymakers have determined the goals (the ends) of the U.S., the military evaluates operational approaches to conduct counterinsurgency efforts depending on the ends, ways, means, and acceptable risk. The joint force provides a range of capabilities that it integrates into the overall strategy. For example, in a functioning state that is facing an insurgency, the joint force may employ a range of security cooperation tools. Moreover, other tools fall outside of security cooperation, such as direct action and counter threat financing, that the U.S. can integrate into the mix of ways that it will use to defeat or contain an insurgency.

The U.S. government integrates the various instruments of national power to create a range of strategic options, of which military involvement is only one part. (For a further discussion on strategy, see MCDP 1-1.) (See table 1-1.)

Table 1-1. Ends, ways, means, and risk in countering an insurgency

Ends Ways Means Risk

Defeat or contain an insurgency.

Support strategic goals and end state defined by policy makers. Direct methods

(See chapter 9.)

Indirect methods

(See chapter 10.) Unified action

• Military force.

• Other

governmental capabilities

Determined by a mismatch in the ends, ways, and means.

1-13. An operational approach is a description of the broad actions the force must take to transform current conditions into those desired at end state (JP 3-0). The commander may use direct or indirect approaches to counter threats. Commanders may find their operational approach is mainly direct, indirect, or a mixture of both. The approach is the manner in which a commander contends with a center of gravity. A direct approach attacks the enemy’s center of gravity or principal strength by applying combat power directly against it. An indirect approach attacks the enemy’s center of gravity by applying combat power against a series of decisive points that lead to the defeat of the center of gravity while avoiding the enemy strength. Commanders may use a single direct or indirect approach or, more likely, may employ a combination of approaches to counter an insurgency and its influence. Additionally, the emphasis on or combination of approaches may have to evolve as the security situation and insurgent networks evolve. The commander’s intent and the approach(es) the commander selects will drive the methods used by counterinsurgents. These methods may be direct or indirect. Approaches and methods must be nested and clearly linked, since they often involve support from diplomatic, economic, and informational efforts by non-military forces. (See chapter 9 for more information on direct methods and chapter 10 for more information on indirect methods. See JP 5-0 for more information on direct and indirect approaches.)

LAND FORCES AND THE RANGE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS

1-14. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps can prevent or defeat an insurgency across the range of military operations. This is true if an insurgency starts in the context of a major combat operation or if it starts during peace. Across the range of military operations and in accordance with U.S. strategy, U.S. land forces take actions and set priorities to shape an environment to reduce the possibility of insurgencies. In some instances an operational environment and its related variables are unstable or fragile and hostile actions against a host-nation government begin. In this environment, the U.S. may make a decision to use some type of military capability. Commanders must understand the effects that the actions and priorities of the U.S. force have on an operational environment. When acting in this environment, commanders must have situational understanding of the environment and the effects of U.S. actions in that environment.

Here is the whole PDF.

When fighting insurgency, you have to take a more holistic approach.

Fat rednecks shouting MAGA, doing Hitler salutes and waving confederate flags while beating up ANTIFA queers are just hired to be there, just like the ANTIFA queers are. They are hired by the same people to do carefully-selected photo and video ops for CNN, which is part of the propaganda arm of the New World Order, in case you are too drunk on stupid sauce to figure that out.

Read this book and learn what is being done against the USA, first. Then you can learn to counter it more effectively. Remember, while you are busy raising children, working a job, and doing good, they are having trillions of YOUR tax dollars thrown at them to hire enemies and traitors to attack and destroy your country.

It's all part of the same plan. As the Luciferians hold a march on the 21st of June to demand a quick implementation of the one world government, realize, this is all being done against you by the same cabal of evil people:

Gay rights

Pedo rights

bestiality rights

Feminism

Emasculation of men

Masculation of women

Attacks on any solid system of morality, specifically the Bible

Nonstop slander campaigns against all that is and all who are right and good.

Tax

Sadistic police enforcers running pedo rings like Mark Lamb in Nevada

Erosion and outright destruction of your personal freedom

More power to government, less power and anonymity to you

Winning this war is going to be done on multiple fronts, but the Queen chess piece is the media. With it, they have created and sustained false narratives, lionizing perverts like Barry and Mikey, and denigrating heroes like Trump.

Take.

Back.

Your.

Media.

>>127288

Trump is not a hero since he could nationalize media in the USA (not that this would be any different) any time he wanted.

See picture #4 anon? What do you think this image means? What do you think it represents?

>Q-tard tryin' to get another sticky

>>127325

>>127336

>>127365

Ready for round 2?