Ken - I really appreciate that post - it shows the value of a military leader who recognizes the need to adapt while preserving most of a full range of options against an enemy who thinks, has options himself, and if possible will take advantage of opportunities presented him; or because he may want it more then you do - might do something we just could not or would not expect (or chose to ignore). I believe our current MNF-I leadership has also done that - while the story would seem to be in the various lines of effort (political, etc.) and that is OK, but there is an awful lot of combat power that has been preserved there for more offensive and defensive operations, and that is at least occasionally needed against an aggressive enemy.

Long story short; we tried to fight a European style war in the rice paddies from 1962 until late 1968 because of two Euro-centric Generals. When Abrams took over and CORDS got going, the war turned around and was effectively won by 1973. It is very important to note that the final tactical solution was a mix of COIN doctrine plus Armor * and infantry tactical battles suited to the terrain and the enemy both relying on good intel. Unfortunately or fortunately (viewpoint dependent) US domestic politics -- which started the war in the first place -- ended it
.

If we find ourselves in similar situations in the future, its probable that it will also go down in a locale where the neighbors have a surly disposition and have their own objectives in mind - a situation where for whatever reason the unlikely happens. Here we will be best served with agile, adaptive leadership that have the full range of tools (with respect to proportion to the mission at hand) to do something about it.

Here is to balance and consistency combined with the very best leadership we can field!

Best, Rob

Best Regards, Rob