I have noticed that when it comes to military theorists, the grander and vaguer the theory, the more popular support it receives. Those that focus on small and achievable changes seem to receive very solid resistance. Examples of large and indistinct theories include 4GW, EBO and Maneuver Warfare. Focused theories would be ones like Wilf's patrol based infantry.
Grandiose theories are like vapor and seem to change to conform to the users desires of the moment, perhaps this is why they are popular, but what real and beneficial purpose do they serve? An analogy;, both social service worker’s and philosopher’s goals are to "help" people find spiritual, emotional and metal wellness. Though the goals are related, philosophy has very little impact on how social service providers go about there work. However, small and focused and testable changes (invariably thought of by social service workers themselves) modify and improve of social service providers work on an on-going basis. How many lives have social service providers had a real impact on? How many has Philosophy impacted.
My point is that real benefit comes from focusing on real and testable change, not extravagant theories on the nature of warfare. An example of a testable hypothesis would be that direct and accurate portable HE projection could replace MG in the primary infantry support role. Best platform would be the XM-109 payload rifle with air-fuzed and HEAP rounds. This could be tested through computer simulation, modeling, field testing and historical review etc etc. While all those methods have there weaknesses and biases, they provide more feedback then is achievable is from the "nature of warfare" theories, so why are focusing on these non-productive concepts of 4GW and EBO etc. to define how we fight COIN?