FM 3-24 / MCWP 3-33.5¶
Headquarters, D. o. t. A., & Corps, U. S. M. (2006). FM 3-24 / MCWP 3-33.5: Counterinsurgency.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Collateral-Damage Blowback
- This empirical pattern is precisely what population-centric doctrine (Galula, later Petraeus's FM 3-24) was built to price into target selection
This sourceThe counterinsurgency manual's doctrine that collateral damage can recruit more insurgents than an operation removes, so expected civilian harm must be weighed when choosing force and targets.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- This empirical pattern is precisely what population-centric doctrine (Galula, later Petraeus's FM 3-24) was built to price into target selection
- Operational Design
- The 2006 counterinsurgency field manual (FM 3-24) and the subsequent change in approach reframed the problem: the environment was re-characterised around the population as the decisive terrain, the problem redefined as protecting and securing civilians to separate them from insurgents, and the operational approach rebuilt accordingly
This sourceFM 3-24 (December 2006) is the doctrinal reframing itself: the population as decisive terrain, protecting and securing civilians as the redefined problem, and the explicit statement that killing insurgents alone cannot defeat an insurgency - the further claim that a change in approach followed in the field is a historical judgement the manual does not carry.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The 2006 counterinsurgency field manual (FM 3-24) and the subsequent change in approach reframed the problem: the environment was re-characterised around the population as the decisive terrain, the problem redefined as protecting and securing civilians to separate them from insurgents, and the operational approach rebuilt accordingly
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 2 of 2 citations: 2 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:591a4eac798e · see in the full table