The Fallacy of HIC vs COIN

[William F. Owen]

In overly simplistic terms, but useful I think, what would be the aggregate percentage dedicated to coin vs Hic? Would it be to focus 70% of our resources and training to coin and the rest hic, or vice versa?

I think, there are fairly simple ways to address this. It may just be raising the bar, when it comes to things you have in the toolbox, but I actually think it's about subjecting some fairly common assumptions about COIN and HIC to some fairly serious rigour - and that is something, based on the output of most US professional journals, that most are failing to do. For example, I fear the idea of "Hybrid" enemies is actually set to send people down the wrong route in the same way Manoeuvre Warfare did.

I think we may be arguing past each other Wilf. I agree with what you say, I just wanted to address why the debate exists in the first place and what aspects of military culture and doctrine have lead to the belief that COIN and HIC and any other form of warfare are not interchangeable. My conclusion is that certain failings in how we conduct all levels of combat have a greater recognizable effect on our ability to conduct COIN and other LICs then they appear have on our HIC ability, though I suspect this is false as well. Have I completely confused you yet?
Reed

Well I strongly disagree that we are even arguing .... - Ah! I kill me.

I hear you brother Reed. There are good armies who can do both and less good armies who can do one or the other.