The United States (U.S.) military efforts in both the Philippine Insurrection (1899-1902) and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM (OIF) were successful combat operations. Although the U.S. was successful in liberating the Philippines from Spain and freeing Iraqis from the oppressive Saddam Hussein Regime, the military struggled with a prolonged counter insurgency (COIN) in both instances. The similarities between the COIN policies of attraction and chastisement in the Philippines and OIF show that the U.S. military dominated conventional warfare, but failed to identify and address the root causes of an insurgency. Comparing and contrasting both COIN operations highlights the importance of correctly addressing the local populace’s grievances and ads to the legitimacy of the Host Nation (HN) government.
COIN can be defined as a blend of comprehensive civilian and military efforts designed to simultaneously defeat and contain an insurgency by addressing its root causes with a …show more content…
Both operations initially used a policy of attraction until it failed, which led to the application of a policy of chastisement. Looking at the analogy of the “carrot and the stick” approach, chastisement is the stick. The policy of chastisement is a punishment based system which uses calculated measures of aggression against the insurgents to eliminate them or against the local populace that supports the insurgents in order to dissuade popular support for the insurgency. Like the policy of attraction, chastisement is also important in legitimizing the HN government. It demonstrates the government, through military force, can provide security and protection for the people. It also shows insurgents that the government is strong and can eradicate a threat if necessary. To understand the repercussions of using this policy we must assess its application during both COIN
COIN can be defined as a blend of comprehensive civilian and military efforts designed to simultaneously defeat and contain an insurgency by addressing its root causes with a …show more content…
Both operations initially used a policy of attraction until it failed, which led to the application of a policy of chastisement. Looking at the analogy of the “carrot and the stick” approach, chastisement is the stick. The policy of chastisement is a punishment based system which uses calculated measures of aggression against the insurgents to eliminate them or against the local populace that supports the insurgents in order to dissuade popular support for the insurgency. Like the policy of attraction, chastisement is also important in legitimizing the HN government. It demonstrates the government, through military force, can provide security and protection for the people. It also shows insurgents that the government is strong and can eradicate a threat if necessary. To understand the repercussions of using this policy we must assess its application during both COIN