A counter insurgency study an analysis of local defenses

Local Defenses are view by many counterinsurgency strategists as an essential element in defeating an insurgency. Providing a population with a local defense organization will strongly support the government's strategy of extending its security and control over the rural areas affected by insurgent organizations. However every insurgency is unique and demands a unique counterinsurgency strategy to be defeated. There always will b e an important commonality: insurgent organizations need popular support to subsist. The final success of the government or the insurgents will be determined by the capacity of either both to win and retain the support among the rural population. The analysis of the four cases presented in this study clearly demonstrates each government's approach to the insurgent problem, including the use of local defenses to protect rural populations from insurgent attacks and influence. The organization of localdefenses during the Malayan Emergency, the El Salvador's Civil War, as well as the Vietnam War and the Terrorist Epoch in Peru proved to be a force multiplier for the government's effort, at least during the time period in which they were effectively implemented. The contribution of this analysis is not that of providing a framework or recipe for strategists to implement this kind of organizations. Rather, the contribution of this study is on a set of variables to be considered when planning the implementation of local defenses as part of a counterinsurgency effort.http://archive.org/details/acounterinsurgen109451424Lieutenant Commander, PeruMajor, United States ArmyApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field