Quote Originally Posted by Van View Post
Did Gumz address the impact of widespread, instantaneous, personal communications and the absolute (and often asinine) democratization of media?

Did he talk about virtual sanctuaries in addition to the classic geographical sanctuaries?

Did he address globalization of insurgent movements enabled by contemporary transportation networks?

Did he address the impact of the rise of social sciences and their subsequent corruption by political activists?

Did he address the differences between classic cell structured organizations and contemporary viral or distributed organizations?
OK, but do any of things pass the "so what test" of operational relevance. Some of those things are not new. All those things may be true, but do they actually have the impact that the "Nouveau-COIN" say they do? Kilcullen goes on about Globalisation. Colin Gray convincingly argues it's irrelevant - and I agree with him. I'd say the same about the Internet. Have any of these things changed the nature of Political goals each side seeks to achieve? If no, then they have little or no military impact.

The "Nouveau-COIN," is like the MW crowd, they don't just cherry pick, but they are also generally poor military historians, in that they assume there is something distinct called "Counter-insurgency," -which you can study in isolation, and that from that you can develop "COIN Theories."

The worst thing they try to tell you is that military force isn't the primary method by which insurgencies are defeated, and as evidence cite cases where military force was stupidly or badly applied, or ignore and denigrate it's absolute necessity in creating the conditions where the political solution could be achieved - so none of them read Clausewitz either.
From this we see, in the last 7 years, is body of literature emerging , that says nothing new or insightful, about so called "counter-insurgency."

As Ken says "Every War is Different," and in unanimous agreement with that, I say "War is War."