The article from which this image is drawn is an interesting take on COIN without a firm organisation foundation…
The third issue paper developed under the FM 3-24 Revision project discusses the clear-hold-build concept from a doctrinal perspective and finds it somewhat wanting – if nothing else this reinforces the absolute need for a precise tactical lexicon that defines the language of the contemporary operating environment…my comments are quite brief as this paper heads the nail fair on the head and there is little to really do other than support its findings…
‘Clear-hold-build’ is one approach of a number that might be employed to counter an insurgency; the brute force-based simply ‘clear’ represents another equally, if not more, successful approach. Operational art is one of the factors that affects how well military aspects of the broader campaign are conducted
Other than that, all the other points made in the discussion are supported, especially the need for a clear operational lexicon that can be employed across the spectrum of operations.
Recommendation 1. Less the operational art content, this recommendation is supported.
Recommendation 2. The need for a more comprehensive operational lexicon is supported.
Recommendation 3. The shift from clear-hold-build to secure-control-support is supported. This model better aligns with the stages of a counterinsurgency campaign discussed in paragraphs 5-4 to 5-6 of the current FM 3-24.