The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)

[William F. Owen]

Woeful compared to what? At the time it meet the need for Iraq and is a big step up from other 'COIN" pubs from the same time e.g. those from Canada and Australia.

Woeful as in not needed, overly long, complicated and not useful.

Distinct from what? The mil/non-mil mix is more disitnct in COIN/CIT/CIA than it is conventional force-on-force conflict e.g. the good old Fulda gap.

COIN is not a distinct form or warfare. Fighting an insurgency requires the application of military force. How that force is applied is in the context of Irregular War, not in a "COIN" context. It is very doubtful if the idea of "COIN" as it is currently touted actually withstands any rigour at all.

The UK did produce COIN manuals and quite good ones well before FM 3-24 every appeared on the scene - .

Yes, but they were theatre specific. The CATOM for example was for use only in Malaya. -which is why Kitson was forced to write "Low Intensity Operations" in September 1970, precisely because the UK Staff Collage lacked a viable publication on the issue.

[Chris jM]

Woeful as in not needed, overly long, complicated and not useful.

Would you extend this description to FM3-24.2 Tactics In Counter-Insurgency, as well?

http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/cointacticsfm.pdf

[William F. Owen]

Would you extend this description to FM3-24.2 Tactics In Counter-Insurgency, as well?

http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/cointacticsfm.pdf

Still flawed, but its a great deal more useful. It has to be asked, how come it's a different manual?

[Ken White]

It has to be asked, how come it's a different manual?

for 'doctrine writers.' Plus it beefs up the printing, warehousing, distribution and other staffing and budgeting arguments...

We now do process. Not products.