Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
with Paul Van Riper when he was one -- even though he was with the VNMC and I was with a neighboring Ngay Dzu Bn -- I'm inclined to disagree with the concept of a dedicated Advisory element in either service.

Perhaps if I'd had the benefit of the MATA course I might feel differently; perhaps if I'd felt my results and those of the many other dedicated advisors I saw over the years there were worth the effort expended, I might feel differently.

That's inconsequential stuff. My biggest fear is the Parkinson's Law effect. We develop a capability that we need here and now but may not need in the future. If that capability exists and is not needed, the pressure to put it to work becomes significant -- whether it's the best solution or not...
Yes I share your fear wrt to Parkinson's Law effect. It seems we tend to forget all the lessons learned as an institution from the war we just fought. Its clear we completely (as organizaitons) forgot the lessons Vietnam taught us. The money isn't in small dirty wars of peace...but in the big ticket defense systems (see Osprey, AAAV in the Marine Corps case, F-35 etc...).
FID/COIN (I don't think anyone will disagree with me) are people intensive endeavors where there is plenty of gray area. We all like the stand up knock them down fight, because is a simple one to wage.
I think the Army and Marine Corps needs to have this capability for the duration of the time our services exist. MCTAG is a step in this direction.
One last thing; I think in the Marine Corps case, this has been overlooked.
Many of the mid grade to senior Officers and SNCOS who won the battles in the Pacific during WW II, cut their teeth in those small dirty savage wars of peace between the World Wars. I am willing to bet that this probably holds true for the Army to some degree also.