War on the cheap?

[Ski]

Ken

No offense taken.

For some strange reason, I am starting to see historical trends emerging again. Great tactics, decent operational art, piss poor strategy. I'd say you have to get all three right if you want to win a COIN fight, but that's one mans opinion.

Otherwise, we're just shadow boxing.

[Rank amateur]

For some strange reason, I am starting to see historical trends emerging again. Great tactics, decent operational art, piss poor strategy.

Agreed, although I'm not sure that "good" strategies are available: maybe only "less bad" ones.

[Ken White]

Ken

No offense taken.

For some strange reason, I am starting to see historical trends emerging again. Great tactics, decent operational art, piss poor strategy. I'd say you have to get all three right if you want to win a COIN fight, but that's one mans opinion.

Otherwise, we're just shadow boxing.

Thanks.

Not sure I totally agree on either the operational or strategy parts, though. IMO, COIN efforts become the Operational level when instituted and we took almost three years to get there. Way too long. Strategy wise, if you accept that Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg as I believe, I think it's too early to make that judgment. Based on what is now known, seems to me it has at least a 60:40 chance of being good as opposed to poor...

I don't think it's possible to 'win' a COIN fight. I cannot think of an instance since G. Khan where one has been one. Certainly in the last century all that's been able to be achieved is an acceptable outcome (and that includes the oft touted Malaya) and thus far, I think, an acceptable outcome in both Afghanistan and Iraq is achievable.

Rank Amateur has a good point -- in the case of the Islamists, there aren't any great strategies I can see, only less bad ones and this one, while not one I would have chosen is, I think, no worse than mine, far better than many (including the diplomacy / hearts and minds foolishness) and has a decent chance of success. We'll see.