Once again I'm amazed that so many people want to make this an "either/or" question (and that's not directed at anyone in this thread...just a general observation). I'm beginning to think this is the modern American pathology...

There's always a time and a place TO use fire support (precision and otherwise), just like there's a time and place to NOT use fire support. The trick is being able to learn when and when not to use kenetic methods. The thrust of most COIN writing I've seen (barring the extremes on both ends) is more warning against relying on firepower (be it artillery or airstrikes...and H&I fire practices in Vietnam typically come in for at least as much critical commentary as airstrikes in that conflict), but it's not ruled out as an option or tool if the situation warrants it. I don't think I've seen any sane writer on the subject advocate removing precision fires from the toolkit. Even the old Small Wars Manual contained sections on this sort of thing.

I also agree with Ken in the suspicion that the American fascination with numbers and metrics has a hand in some of this. Along with that "either/or" switch, we want a box score. In Vietnam it became sorties, not results of those sorties. Depending on the mindset, here it could be PGMs delivered OR goodwill packets handed out. Does either metric really reflect results? Not necessarily, but no one ever sticks around long enough to find out.