text: Understanding the Strategic Context
  population, not the counterinsurgency force. When military forces remain in secure compounds, they lose
  touch with the situation, appear to be indifferent to the population, simplify enemy intelligence operations,
  or appear afraid to engage the insurgents. In effect, they concede the initiative to the insurgents. To be
  successful, counterinsurgency forces must work with and share risks with the host-nation forces and the
  population. Soldiers and Marines must accept some risk to minimize harm to noncombatants. Accepting
  prudent risk is an essential part of the warrior ethos and an obligation of honorable service.
  1-38. Leaders must accept ambiguity and risk, which are inherent to decentralized operations. The
  presence of a local population within which insurgents may disappear creates a high degree of ambiguity.
  Operationally adaptable leaders observe the rapidly changing situation, identify its key characteristics,
  determine what has to be done in consultation with subordinates and host-nation forces, and determine the
  best method to accomplish the mission. They must assess and accept prudent risk, and they must adjust
  rapidly as conditions change. They must be able to shift operational tasks from capacity building to combat
  and back again in days, or even hours. Alert junior leaders recognize the dynamic context of a tactical
  situation and can use their professional judgment to apply informed lethal and non-lethal force to achieve
  the commander’s intent. Any use of force generates a series of reactions. The general rule for the use of
  force for the counterinsurgents is “do not create more enemies than you eliminate with your action.” The
  more force is applied, the greater the chance of collateral damage and mistakes. There will be times when
  an overwhelming effort is necessary to destroy or intimidate an opponent and reassure the populace.
  However, counterinsurgency forces should calculate carefully the type and amount of force to be applied
  and who wields it for any operation. Using force precisely and discriminately strengthens the rule of law
  that needs to be established in the host nation. Normally, counterinsurgency forces can use escalation of
  force procedures to minimize unnecessary loss of life or suffering. These procedures are especially
  appropriate during an operation in which the counterinsurgent security force interacts with the local
  population. All interactions between security forces and the population directly impact legitimacy. (See
  chapter 13 for legal information on the use of force).
  1-39. Who wields force is also important. If the police have a reasonable reputation for competence and
  impartiality, it may be better for them to execute urban raids than military forces because the population is
  more likely to view their application of force as legitimate. This is true even if the police are not as well
  armed or as capable as military forces. Local circumstances, however, affect this decision. For example, if
  the police are seen as part of an ethnic or sectarian group oppressing the general population, their use may
  be counterproductive. (See chapter 10 regarding the development of host-nation security forces and chapter
  12 regarding assessing counterinsurgency operations. For further discussions on use of force, see chapter
  13.)
  1-40. The environments where counterinsurgency operations exist can be much more ethically complex
  than those associated with conventional conflicts. Many leadership and ethical imperatives are prominent
  and, in some cases, unique to counterinsurgency. The dynamic and ambiguous environment of modern
  counterinsurgency places a premium on leadership at every level, from sergeant to general. Application of
  decentralized authority and decisionmaking is more prevalent in counterinsurgency than other types of
  military operations. Combat in a counterinsurgency is frequently a small-unit leader’s fight; however,
  senior leaders set the conditions and the tone for all actions by subordinates. Today’s Soldiers and Marines
  must rapidly adapt cognitively and emotionally to the perplexing challenges of counterinsurgency and
  master new competencies in dynamic contexts. Those in leadership positions must provide the moral
  compass for their subordinates as they navigate this complex environment. Underscoring these imperatives
  is the fact that exercising leadership in the midst of ambiguity requires intense, discretionary professional
  judgment. Army and Marine Corps leaders are expected to demonstrate their competence, character, and
  commitment to their professional ethic. All leaders must continually reconcile mission effectiveness,
  ethical standards, and thoughtful stewardship of the nation’s precious resources—human and material—in
  the pursuit of national aims. Leaders must link tactical actions to strategic objectives and to the host
  nation’s essential political goals. U.S. forces must use the combat multiplier of seeking and maintaining the
  moral high ground in a counterinsurgency. Doing so guarantees maintaining trust with the American people
  and upholds the ideals of the profession of arms.