The one primary lesson everyone military or not hopefully gets is that no matter what kind of war we're in, We Dont want to have to do it and should spend a large amount of intellectual effort in how to keep from having to.

In regards to the concerns that both Nagl and Gentile express it really seems to be an exercise in futility to argue the value's of one form of warfare over the other if for no other reason than the discussions always end up with comparison's between pieces like cost, resources, personnel, etc. Not that these aren't valid but rather that they perhaps tend to detract from the larger discussion that Bill addressed above.

Should or shouldn't we, and why, and what requires that we do or don't go to war. How should we percieve what happens elsewhere in regards to our Nat Sec in both human and fiscal terms. That particular discussion would seem to be more likely to result in a common and at least more acceptable WOG approach to future military use.

I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that the "SURGE" was carried out in what was probably as good a way possible and for all intensive purposes did serve to bring forth the opportunity for Iraqi's to get it right. As to what right will look like for them and whether or not we(WESTERNERS) percieve it as such is as yet to be seen. I do think though that when the Govt of Iraq really starts acting in what it sees as its countries best interests, there will be a plethura of those throughout the international community who feel the need to complain, point fingures, say "I told you so" etc, and it should be no surprise that many enemies will use this in order to put forth their own agendas.

As to the specific statement by Col Gentile:

The Army under the Petraeus Doctrine “is entering into an era in which armed conflict will be protracted, ambiguous, and continuous—with the application of force becoming a lesser part of the soldier’s repertoire.” The concept rests on the assumption that the much touted “surge” in Iraq was a successful feat of arms, an assertion that despite the claims of punditry supporters in the press has yet to be proven. The war in Iraq is not yet over.
Yes it would seem to be common sense that if you learn to cook rather than joust than you may end up being a great chef for your new masters after the heavy attack. I'm not sure though that I have really heard from many of those who have been over there that they don't know how nor that they don't want to kick some &^%. There are frustrations with differing missions and this does need to be addressed but in training not strategy. If you limit your planning to only those areas with which you are comfortable than of course when the enemy decides to play to the areas where you are uncomfortable things will probably not be pretty.

Long and Short-

Do we need to get back to the basics in training some of the more heavy fighting skillsets, sure. Not sure that I've seen anyone disagree with that.

Should we focus on COIN soley of course not, and I know I've not seen anyone expect that

Do we choose not to work dilligently at being the best we can at COIN,NB, etc simply because we fear that it will end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
No , we do however figure out how to do both HIC and LIC be good as possible at both and work hard as hell to avoid either.

IT's not a competition between the two whether we like it or not it requires both, and in the end we only get so much say on which or when it happens.

The Enemy has a vote too