Quote Originally Posted by terbay View Post
Currently I'm writing a thesis about negative effects of using the military in counterterrorism missions. I'm especially interested in the issue that if militaries engaged unconventional missions for a long period of time do they lose their conventional war fighting skills. I'm following the arguments of Col. Gentile and find them very useful. My question is that do you think any other conflict in history may become an example like of Israel against Hezbollah in 2006 where a military lost a conventional type of conflict because of focus on counterinsurgency for a long period of time?

Regards,
My two cents' worth...

I think it's a BIG mistake to have it as a national policy / strategy / doctrine / whatever you want to call it, to have our general purpose forces as proficient in unconventional (irregular) warfare as they are in conventional warfare. That's what the SOF folks are for. The focus areas of these two types of warfare are entirely different, requiring different methods to organize, train, and equip (OTE). One is basically focused on defeating a known adversary thru attrition, the other by securing the population and winning their hearts and minds. It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out that the OTE requirements are entirely different for these two mission sets.

And I'd have to agree with the previous comment that Israel didn't "lose" that conflict with Hezbollah in 2006. Were they surprised at the TTPs and resiliency that they encountered from the Hezbollah fighters? No doubt. But did they "lose" that conflict? I don't think so.