Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
To my mind there never was a COIN v Something else debate. I can't speak for COL Gentile, but I don't think anyone has ever spoken against COIN. They spoken about biasing training and resources so heavily towards COIN (Security Operations) that Combat Operations skills and resources suffer.

Add to that the perversion of the "Security mission" into a "nation building mission" and I think you have still think there is a lot left unresolved.
Wilf,

I've stated this about ten times on other similar threads but it bears repeating to your observations.

Much of what COL G is saying is true, but what I am about to say is true as well -

Our TRAINING and OPERATIONAL forces are near 100% focused on COIN/SO/SFA. That is because the Army is fully committed to OIF and OEF for at least the next 2 years. It is irresponsible not to train them for the environments they are directly heading to.

Our LEADER DEVELOPMENT and EDUCATION has not significantly changed. Tweaked, but not changed. You can find numerous observations here on SWJ and on BCKS commenting about that our schoolhouses are generally focused on HIC.

I have a paper which will be published in a few months outlining the whole case, but the bottom line is that COIN is not currently mandated or integrated as a subject of military professional education. The educational system is a greater threat because right now it leads us to a repeat of our 1973-2003 educational deficit for this spectrum of war.

So in a sense, Gian is right, but so are many of the COIN crowd in stating that the institution has not changed for the long term. As soon as we have non-deploying combat brigades, HIC skills will resurrect.

Niel