Quote Originally Posted by jwater View Post
My question is this: are weapon systems like the M1 and the AH-64 liabilities in a strictly COIN environment?
The quick answer to that is that all wars differ and that ANY attempt to establish an all encompassing parameter is likely to do more harm than good. Any other 'answer' to that question is liable to allow formation of a supposition that the current wars and their specifics are transferable to other places, people and times. That is not at all true.

Each war and set of ethnicities involved will have differing attitudes toward other nations, toward technologies and those and other variances including the terrain are inimical to an academic or scientific hypothesis.
I understand the morale boost that such systems can bring to beleaguered infantry in a firefight, but my concern is that their destructive capabilities can really endanger the overall mission. Political considerations about troop levels aside, wouldn't the costs associated with such systems be better spent on more, better equipped troops on the ground and other lower-key systems to support a less kinetic approach?

Again, let me cover my ass here: I'm not trying to knock cav or aircav in any way, I don't think such weapon systems should be phased out, but I wonder if they're really appropriate in our current COIN operations.
In order:

- The morale boost is not at all significant, the killing power is the significance. As you allude, it can cut both ways. That's why an individual assessment not only of the war in question but even of various regions and populations affected or in contest is imperative.

- If you say the weapons systems should be available, they will be used if at all appropriate -- and perhaps if not. That is dependent mostly on the quality of your commander and not really on weapon or system procurements and inventories. If you elect to not procure them and procure other systems designed specifically for low intensity operations, I believe history suggests that you have guaranteed that your next war will involve major combat operations...

- The correct question really is; Are or were our current COIN operations necessary.

The Tanks and attack helicopters are used for their combat power. That power is sometimes needed and sometimes not. The root issue in your query is weapons employment, not location, procurement or possession. That employment varies widely and should be based solely on assessment of the METT-TC factors. Those factors will not only vary from war to war but from time to time within a given war. One 'T' in that mnemonic indicates terrain and that, urban or rural, jungle or desert also impacts not only tactics but weapons usability and survival. There is no one size fits all...

We are involved in COIN operations not because we had no choice but since elected to be so involved. That will almost certainly be the case if we are foolish enough to decide to be involved in another -- and it may be a totally different war than either current theater. Better diplomacy and thinking along with full spectrum capability can preclude our involvement in COIN-like situations which are far too costly for the benefit derived.