COIN v. Conventional Capability Debate

[stanleywinthrop]

Forgive me for digressing from some of the themes developed here but a couple of points:

1. On the "ghosts of vietnam" thread, poster 'steve' made a comment "But, sadly, another historical reality seems to be that the American Army prefers to prepare for the enemy it wants to fight and not the enemy it has to fight. This has been the trend since the Revolution, and I see no real signs of it ending." I find it illuminating that no one acknowledged this comment, even to summarily dismiss it.

2. I am fascinated that certain parties find it disturbing that 90% of the U.S. army artillery is not certified. Why is that a problem? Are we expecting a dire need for 90% more artillery in Iraq or Afghanistan? Artillery, when you boil it down, is a science, and not a particulary difficult one at that. Point the gun on a certain azimuth, at a certain inclination, factor in wind, and a few other factors, and the projectile will fall at the desired target. Period. I learned how to do these calculations in high school. Modern technology virtually eliminates 'stubby pencil' errors. Of course running an efficient gun line is a lot more than that, but are the dire prognosticators telling us that you can't take a current unit to the field, supply them with sufficient training ammunition, and NOT have them operating at a proficient level within a few weeks? Huh? If that is really what is being suggested, my opinion of the Army will drop a few notches. My apologies to the cannon cockers here, I respect you very much and agree that you are very much needed in certain types of war, but the fact is proficiency in artillery can be regained within a few weeks. Proficiency in COIN, if ever gained, takes years.

To regurgitate some Kilcullen, our enemies will make us fight this type of war until we get it right, and while progress has been made we have not quite got it right yet.

[Adam L]

2. I am fascinated that certain parties find it disturbing that 90% of the U.S. army artillery is not certified. Why is that a problem? Are we expecting a dire need for 90% more artillery in Iraq or Afghanistan? Artillery, when you boil it down, is a science, and not a particulary difficult one at that. Point the gun on a certain azimuth, at a certain inclination, factor in wind, and a few other factors, and the projectile will fall at the desired target. Period. I learned how to do these calculations in high school. Modern technology virtually eliminates 'stubby pencil' errors. Of course running an efficient gun line is a lot more than that, but are the dire prognosticators telling us that you can't take a current unit to the field, supply them with sufficient training ammunition, and NOT have them operating at a proficient level within a few weeks? Huh? If that is really what is being suggested, my opinion of the Army will drop a few notches. My apologies to the cannon cockers here, I respect you very much and agree that you are very much needed in certain types of war, but the fact is proficiency in artillery can be regained within a few weeks. Proficiency in COIN, if ever gained, takes years.

To regurgitate some Kilcullen, our enemies will make us fight this type of war until we get it right, and while progress has been made we have not quite got it right yet.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I think you are going a bit too far. Yes, it is unlikely we are going to have a demand for a massive amount of artillery overnight, but part of the Army's job is to be prepared for that. If in the unlikely event we suddenly had to send a massive ground force into somewhere, we are going to need artillery (and a lot of other things) quickly. (Although I have no idea what is needed to certify the units and/or give them proper train up, I can guess it would be difficult to deal with 90% overnight. Money, ammo and instructors don't grow on trees.) One thing we have learned through out history is that we never fight the war we want and rarely the one we predict/expect. We also often found ourselves having neglected some very basic essentials.

Also, everything is more complicated or challenging than it seems. Never underestimate the difficulty of any task, especially when it will have to be performed in combat.

Adam L

[Ken White]

Forgive me for digressing from some of the themes developed here but a couple of points:

1. ... I find it illuminating that no one acknowledged this comment, even to summarily dismiss it.

Perhaps because it's true?

2. I am fascinated that certain parties find it disturbing that 90% of the U.S. army artillery is not certified. Why is that a problem? ... My apologies to the cannon cockers here, I respect you very much and agree that you are very much needed in certain types of war, but the fact is proficiency in artillery can be regained within a few weeks. Proficiency in COIN, if ever gained, takes years.

First, for a number of reasons, the training problem is not quite as easy as you blithely say. Second and more important; proficiency in COIN does not take years and is easily gained; high intensity combat is more difficult than COIN -- both are necessary skills.

To regurgitate some Kilcullen, our enemies will make us fight this type of war until we get it right, and while progress has been made we have not quite got it right yet.

There is no right -- or wrong; there are only acceptable outcomes to be aimed for. Enemies don't make you fight unless you choose to do so. War is war; but warfare mutates, we are seeing such a mutation and we're catching up rapidly enough. No worries.