Attack By Fire + Use of Spies

Setting a fire to a house in the hope that there is an insurgent inside is probably a bad idea, so I'm going to move away from that interpretation. Rather, attack by fire could be directed to something much more awe-inspiring: Artillery or Remote Missile Strikes. If the strikes seem at all effective, follow up and seize control of the area. If not, then wait.

The evolution of espionage is certainly a broad topic. It can be traced back in American History to cases such Enoch Crosby, a spy in the revolutionary war who joined the British army to reveal battle plans to the American soldiers. Spies played a major role in every major conflict since, such as the American Civil War where the lines were often blurred between friend or foe and this allowed spies to operate with greater impunity than before. After the Spanish American war, the US began taking intelligence gathering more seriously and as a result G-2 was founded in the Army and ONI was founded in the Navy. Counter-intelligence evolved from the use of people as spies to areas such as cryptology and the decipherment of messages. American intelligence failed to intercept the messages sent by Japanese spies regarding Pearl Harbor, a pivotal event in WWII. Following WWII, espionage reached new heights during the Cold War where intelligence and counter-intelligence efforts by the United States grew immensely through agencies such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI. Double-agents wreaked havoc on both sides and were involved in the dismantling of projects and the deaths of many. Currently, espionage by use of surveillance is frequently used by the United States (satellite imaging, drones). However, that is not to say that the traditional form of espionage has passed. Since the beginning, spies have made use of their status as supposed friends to the state which they are harming to conduct their work. To dismantle insurgencies, there is the possibility of recruiting low-key personnel to infiltrate insurgent ranks and bring them down from the inside.

On the March + Forms of Terrain + The Nine Situations

Alright, so obviously this cannot directly translate to urban warfare. That much is clear. However, it can still be applied. For example, letting 'half his troops cross before you strike' is reminiscent of an ambush and not setting it off too quickly. Wherever one initiates an attack on a column of troops, it would be much more effective to strike in the middle since it would cause the most damage. It would also be wise to keep this in mind that that's when and where an insurgent with a remote controlled IED will strike if he's smart.

'If he is at a distance and provokes battle, he wants his opponent to advance' means to be wary of following a vulnerable-looking enemy off the beaten path as this well may be a trap. He also talks about an enemy that has hostile intentions can appear docile and submissive, as is the case with insurgents who pretend that they have a peace agenda when they are in fact getting ready to attack. The aspect of deception in general is something that an insurgency makes wide use of, such as when one will pretend to be injured or hurt so that it slows down troops who think they have to care for him/her.

Knowing the terrain is stressed over an over. In urban combat, particularly if the combat is spontaneous or reactionary, it is impossible to know the terrain. It is likely that urban combat means running into unfamiliar terrain. The enemy already has this advantage, so you should keep him from having anything else by being quick and aggressive, and then withdrawing with all haste and not staying on the objective.