I would say that the great flaw of "social work" is that they lack good philosophy. Most "social work" I am aware of has an end result that is counterproductive, with more, not less human suffering. "Social work" without sound philosophical underpinnings lacks "goodness". In fact, I would propose that philosophically, someone who makes their living off of human suffering is evil. So, do you really want to go down that trail???
I don't see how testing gadgets relates to fighting COIN. I would suggest that developing new weapons and systems for COIN is a case of "asking the wrong question."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?
Reed
Have you read Galula yet, on counterinsurgency? If not, do so. If so, read it again.
On the subject of weapons testing, the Achilles tendon of material testing is bad assumptions and poor variable management. The best test I can think of is akin to the old Samsonite vs. Gorilla commercials, only you need to have Joe Snuffy abuse it over a prolonged period of time to REALLY test a weapon.
Bookmarks