Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
...
There is more than ego. There is no glamour in stability operations ... being a glorified policeman, a "peacekeeper". Without that glamour the leadership does not want to do it and Congress doesn't want to pay for it.
Agree -- but I suggest the glamor aspect is partly ego. In fairness, there was / is a true concern for the troops and the institution (not necessarily in that order in all cases); COIN is ugly, tedious work. Certainly best avoided -- but not to the point of trying to deny one will ever do that mission.

Congress doesn't want to pay for much of anything that won't benefit multiple districts. I've condemned them for that for over forty years. However, in fairness to them, the Army (and DoD) have gone along with that chicanery for that same forty years. It's a case of everyone remembering what their oath says and doing the right thing instead of the expedient thing. Ten years ago I despaired of that ever changing. Today, thanks to the internet and blogs like this, hope may be at hand.

I am not sure if you could really use the same units that kicked in the door to immediately shift to providing security in a way that does not alienate the population, in a manner that co-opts any potential insurgency rather than reinforces thier themes. For the Infantry I don't think this is feasible or wise. I want them on the top of thier game...
Done both as an Infantryman in two countries in different services, it's not at all hard to shift gears IF the troops are even reasonably well trained. We still do not train well, even though we're pretty much doing it better now than ever before.

...But some of the other units, like FA and ADA could make the shift. But I still have reservations on how to get the second, supplemental set of equipment into theater. It would also require the DIV HQ to be able to make that shift. But now I am just rambling.
The 'second' set should be part of the MTOE and should deploy with the unit to the staging area for short term hold than rapid movement forward.

I remember seeing what we used to call RACO, Rear Area Combat Operations, slowly fall by the wayside. All the Corps support assets transitioned into front line units...
The MPs picked up the mission and did it well (even though DA did not resource them well for the mission until 2004) -- if Rumsfeld hadn't screwed with the TPFDL, there'd have been a reinforced MP Bde right behind 3d ID --- instead, there was one Bn. Micromangement has its flaws...

We lost ASGs and the likes as more BCTs were built. Now we have the "Non-Contiguous Battlefield". To me, that just means that we have ceded control of sections of the battlefield to the enemy. I am wandering off down a rabbit hole but I feel that the two subjects are related. It seems to me that if we quit concentraing on lean and lethal we might make some progress toward a force that is capable of performing all the missions that we need to be able to handle.
I'm not sure it's as bad as you think. Lot of serving folks I talk too think there's still too much tail. In any event, the non-contiguous battlefield is reality, not a question of ceding territory, it's a question of available bayonets. Fortunately, the ISTAR assets cover the holes and the MQ1-C, Guided GMLRS, Excalibur and some other toys should make it mostly a non-problem.