Quote Originally Posted by Bill Jakola View Post
This contract between the society and the profession is what distinguishes the profession of arms from an occupation or trade. For example, as Dr. Snider points out, in 2003 the society asked the profession to conduct COIN but the profession did not have any COIN expertise. This was a failure of the profession and this is why we need to have this conversation. We need to ensure our profession of arms maintains the required expertise across the full spectrum of operations. This is our mandate from the society we serve.
So why doe the US Army consistently choose not to maintains the required expertise across the full spectrum of operations?

The failure to be ready to fight an Irregular Threat was a failure of training. Almost all US Officers knew they should be doing it. They just CHOSE to ignore it, because no one forced them to study their profession in an objective sense.

Failing to admit this has left the door wide open for the "COIN Club" and stuff like FM32-4, which are failures of exactly the same nature. Until the US Army understands that their job is WARFARE, then all the other sophistry and pontificating will make no difference. Being skilled at "fighting" - in it's broadest sense, is what counts. All else is rubbish.

....and let us not fall back on the idea that the US Army was "good at fighting regular threats." There is no evidence that they were. They managed to beat the Iraqi Army. That did not required great skill. They were 4th rate in 1991 and 10th rate in 2003.