Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
I liken it to WWII. The Allies fight the Aggressive Axis to the "glorious victory". That's the oversimplification.

In reality, that fails to address the complexity of who the "Allies" and the "Axis" really were.

History tells us that the Polish weren't completely "sweetness and light". Also, the Finns weren't on anyones' side but their own. Or the USSR, for that matter? And what about the Romanians? Or the Vichy French? Or the German-sympathetic Chinese who were also fighting the Japanese? Or the Danes & Swiss?

Despite its' complexity, can anyone then argue that WWII was NOT fought by the Allies against Axis Aggression?

Surely, this is not the same kind of conflict as WWII, with the well-defined (sometimes) nation state, but I think there is some utility in simplifying terms.
The problem with simplification is that it creates 'certainty' where there is none. This in turn leads to generalisations.

Secondly it makes for wide margins. In 'conventional' ops, when a boundary can be discovered, a smart person exploits it. Similarly these wide margins are not helpful. - they are like unsecured philosophical flanks. They lead to misapprehension and misunderstanding. Not at all useful in the COIN fight.

I think that it would be far more useful for people to be disciplined and precise, that is, careful with terms, making the 'arguments' clearer.

Cheers,

Mark