IIRC, the Natick rationale was that 'there is no black in nature...' one of the more brilliant statements by any Army proponent for something.

As for Woodland, one would hope not but the Army can be about that stupidly stubborn when someone tells them they have or had a bad idea. Scroll through the picures at the Multicam site (LINK) and note the Woodland - Multicam contrasts. The ACU has the same problem Woodland has as it is washed more or in harsh water /soaps, it fades badly and not only loses it anti IR properties but has an enhanced IR / thermal problem. Multicam seems to have found a solution to both problems.

The Army probably will not be willing to pay Crye for a license and will then develop its own pattern -- probably Woodland II which will be about as poor as Woodland was / is. Maybe they'll surprise me and do this right...

I'm with Rifleman and Reed, Multicam's about as good as it gets nowadays.

Added: and with George:
the responsible bean counters should be summarily fired.