Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
While no names are mentioned, are some of those experts also advocates of 4GW theory?
wm:

I don’t know; as you point our there are some obvious links from Coin to 4GW. Some Coin experts who are friends of mine, from knowing their work and writings no I don’t think they fall into the reductionist 4GW camp. Many Coin experts have written some quality stuff and played an important role in bringing fresh ideas to our Army especially when we needed them in 2003/4. The two that come to mind is my old Cav Squadron XO Bob Cassidy and a former colleague in the history department at West Point, Kalev Sep. Con Crane at the War College too has written some top-flight stuff; Steve Metz of course along with many others.

My point all along to respond to others in this thread is not that we don’t need Coin doctrine, capability, and thinkers because we do. My point is that we have become so focused on it due to current operational demands that that is all that we can do now and all we can think about. Moreover, because we are so dominated by Coin operations and thinking I do believe that it has caused us to become dogmatic and non-creative to the point where we read events--past and present--through a Coin prism which then determines future action. For example, Coin experts tell us that in any Coin operation the people must be the center of gravity. But in theory, the enemy certainly can and there are plenty of historical cases to back this theory up. So as we look to the future and where we as a nation might commit to next, the dominance of Coin and the perception that we can make it work almost anywhere because we have this great doctrine compels us to charge right in there and, naturally, protect the people. This is what appears to be happening in Afghanistan now. The notion that we have been doing it wrong but now with the new doctrine and experience in Iraq hey we can do Iraq 2 in Afghanistan and succeed; in my mind problematic at best.

gian