Quote Originally Posted by Maximus View Post
War is war is war. Retired Marine LtGen Van Riper has said the US military can only fight two types of wars: those involving fighting enemies that use formations and fire and maneuver, and those against insurgents. I think he'd agree with Wilf in that all the "new" names for conflict only serves to confuse the issue, if not worse.
I with agree Van Riper. I met him, 5 years ago, and we corresponded for a short while. I would add that the US can only fight two types of enemy because essentially that's all there are.

Wilf, based on previous discussions concerning Col Boyd's presentations, I suspect you'd say "why all the fancy wording and slides? Why not just analyze your enemy, figure out what he intends to do to you, adapt where appropriate and crush him/them."
Language is so critical in discussing military thought/science/doctrine. I am sure a fair few here regard me as a pedant, but without the right words we may as well say "ghooodemigig," and then argue if Rommel ever used it.

Quote Originally Posted by AGBrina View Post
Based upon the experience I had, I believe that it is not possible for the same tactical doctrine and force structure to work well in both insurgency and mechanized warfare. Our military must have both an unconventional warfare force and a mechanized warfare force. The debate should be over what is the proper mix of these two force structures, and -just as important- what the distinction between the roles of the Army and the Marines should be.
I agree that it is not useful to have "one doctrine" and "one force structure", but you can have a force capable of altering it's structure, at the sub-unit level, and you can have comprehensive doctrine that addresses both types of enemy - and both may be present at the same time (EG: NVA and NLF/VC) so, I submit, you can't afford not to.