Quote Originally Posted by charlyjsp View Post
My impression is that the U.S. has to a large extent relearnt the old, but failed to integrate the actually new (the 'classicist' COIN - '21st C. insurgencies balance). For some European countries (UK, France, Spain?) various amounts of relearning and adaptation have started. Disagreements?
I'm not sure we will ever 'integrate the new' as will Europe. Different national psyches in a sense. We can be as sympathetic and caring as anyone but that surfaces as an individual attribute and is unlikely to appear as lasting political or military policy and practice. We tend to opt for fixing the problem quickly and barely adequately and moving on and to accept more human inequality, suffering or discomfort in the process.
Whose Coin becomes the legitimate currency (sorry, couldn't resist).
Very valid question. My answer -- which will not surprise most here -- is that very much depends on the situation. There is no one size fits all and attempts to 'simplify' or consolidate doctrine to cover all eventualities are part of the problem. War is probably the most stupid of human endeavors; warfare -- how you do it -- is one of the most complex.

One should insure no misuse of words and no excessive expectations. There is likely to be no 'win' or victory, the best that can usually be obtained is an acceptable outcome and the definition of what constitutes that 'acceptable outcome' is almost certain to change as events occur. Flexibility of outlook and in performance (especially that...) is needed.

Stability ops, COIN et.al. are difficult and tedious and populations around the world differ mightily -- trying what worked in Iraq in Afghanistan will lead to some errors as we will likely see. So whose COIN is indeed appropriate and my view is that everybody's should be known and best practice appropriate to the situation should be used. Do not try to fight or help someone while in a straitjacket.

I strongly agree with Wilf; Foreign Internal Development and stabitiy ops are not military things; they're civil. If one has a security problem and the military is committed, it should rectify the security issue and then disappear to allow a strengthened police organization to handle the residual issues.

Armed Forces should be used where armed force is required and not elsewhere other than in rare and very brief circumstances. To misuse them (as the US is prone to do) is to create as many or more problems as are solved.
...Finland needs to think long and hard about this, particularly the why. The answer to why and in what capacity is to my mind different depending on how Finland understands COIN, FID etc.
EVERY nation, including the US, needs to do that. A little less of it around the world would probably be beneficial. One cannot fix all the wrongs in the world and almost certainly more damage is the result of trying to do so...

Particularly when the wrong tool is used.