I wrote about this on a previous thread, so sorry for repeating myself a bit, but one aspect that I think does not receive sufficient attention in general in this debate is the financial trade-off that absent some major unforeseen event will need to be made by the future administration.
I agree with Wilf that it is largely a false dichotomy, but I suspect that the reason some people on the inside are seeing it as either/or is that, when it comes to resources, the budgetary requirements can be fairly divergent IMO - I would greatly welcome a good counter-arguments to this.
But I am thinking that, while being proficient at one could help with fighting the other (the war is war argument) if we think in terms training or doctrine, when it comes to resources it's rather different. If we spend $200 bil on FCS, a program clearly designed for force-on-force combat, we would have a very different army 10 years from now than if we would spend the same amount of money on COIN oriented capabilities, which could simply mean more soldiers to make longer-term campaigns more sustainable.
Bookmarks