This work argues that "coercive" counterinsurgency (COIN) has played a larger role historically than is currently recognized in today's FM 3-24 doctrine, which reflects the popular view of COIN as emphasizing protection of the population. The extent to which the essence of COIN has been misunderstood and misinterpreted, undermining the coercive "gold standard" is a central concern. While there has been some recognition of the utility of coercive action against insurgents, ethical concerns about proportionality and the indiscriminate use of force have imposed constraints. Where the "gold standard" represents deliberate, strict coercion against the population, FM 3-24 emphasizes a far more limited coercive approach, one that may be to the detriment of COIN operations as understood in historical perspective.