You’re not wrong about the review being a non-story, but it’s still messed up that the military would be thinking about directly fighting labour unrest and similar.
The military is not considering fighting labour unrest or similar. Disruption of labour is just listed as an insurgent tactic.
There is zero mentions of fighting labour unrest, or similar, directly. That runs counter to an overarching COIN principal of involving the local populace in the campaign.
The article author very carefully selected three paragraphs from a 300 page document, expanded on them, and tried to lead the reader to the conclusion you came to.
You’re not wrong about the review being a non-story, but it’s still messed up that the military would be thinking about directly fighting labour unrest and similar.
The military is not considering fighting labour unrest or similar. Disruption of labour is just listed as an insurgent tactic.
There is zero mentions of fighting labour unrest, or similar, directly. That runs counter to an overarching COIN principal of involving the local populace in the campaign.
The article author very carefully selected three paragraphs from a 300 page document, expanded on them, and tried to lead the reader to the conclusion you came to.
Hmm, that deceptive huh? I guess I’ll actually have to read the doctrine.