I've read a lot of Lind, some Boyd and even John Robb - a scary thought, that I've read them.

This manual seems not one of Lind's finer efforts in places - "one riot, one ranger" (pp.11-12) - is he serious or just doing some chain yanking ?

One can agree with this (whether applicable to a cop, a prosecutor; or, for that matter, anyone):

(p.12)
A police officer’s success and survival depend upon his emotional intelligence: “1) emotional self-awareness, 2) independence, 3) interpersonal relationships, 4) empathy, 5) stress tolerance, 6) impulse control, 7) flexibility, [and] 8) problem solving....”
But, why does that need to be an area of special traning for COIN. The eight traits sound like a basic profile for a Marine or soldier in any environment.

Perhaps, because Lind also says (just before that):

The traits of ruthlessness and violence which are desired in a Marine ...
That gave me a little pause - what does ruthless mean and whence from (Old English) - so, "without pity or compassion; cruel, pitiless." Is that a good thing ?

There are some situations that demand violence. More so for the Marine or soldier; less so for the police officer, but self-defense and defense of others do happen.

We lawyers (whether prosecutors or public defenders) generally can duck that issue - although, tell that to an acquaintance who, from his bench, had to take someone out, so as to stop a bad situation in his courtroom.

No doubt some criminal justice concepts (note that I am approaching that as a fusiion of law enforcement and the judicial system, since both need each other) can be useful in COIN. I suspect they are more of the Slap species than of the Lind species.

As a brief note, OODA has no use to me because I am too dumb to remember whether I should orient and observe, or observe and orient. I do believe in something of a DADA loop (data, analyze, decide, act) for law - which looks something like SARA.

PS - Slap. The solution to the following would require some legislative and judicial co-operation:

That is why alot of good ideas do not go anywhere because we wait for the courts to rule on is it legal or not.
A solution would be to develop a fast-track declaratory judgment procedure on law enforcement programs. The program is kicked around by law enforcement - I suppose, in MI, Michigan State Police could be the clearing house (we don't need another agency). When completed, the program would then be submitted to the courts for review of compliance with legislative and constitutional requirements. That decision would then govern all future cases involving the program.