Bob,

Thanks for the reply and thoughtful comments, as always.

As the guys at the very top attempt to sort this out, and to create a classification of operation that allows them to adjust budget priorities the concept that stuck was "Irregular Warfare." While it will probably serve that purpose well enough, it is the second and third order effects that concern me. How those outside DoD perceive IW; how those outside the US perceive IW, etc.
Serious question here: Do you know how they will perceive CIW? How can you be sure those outside DoD will understand that better than what we currently have and how can you estimate the relative impact of making that change in terminology versus something else or even the status quo?

So, my take upon seeing the 'Counterirregular warfare' term this past week was that it was a good compromise between the proponents for IW and those who have grave, and legitimate concerns.
How do you know that?

If the goal is to bring everyone into the same tent, then why not include those who have "legitimate concerns" in the process of crafting new terminology? Maybe what is needed is not new DoD definitions and terminology, but new definitions and terminology at the inter-agency level.