Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
I'm not sure I agree with the veracity of the statement.

I guess I could reply that a Hamster with lit match is more dangerous to a bale of hay, than a snake with a flick knife.
As to it's veracity me thinks if we turn to our good friend webster

1 : devotion to the truth : truthfulness
2 : power of conveying or perceiving truth
3 : conformity with truth or fact : accuracy
4 : something true <makes lies sound like veracities>
It would seem that both yours and my statements fit the bill.

That said perhaps it's applicability to the discussion might be called into question.

Then again maybe not.

Consider that the underlying premise is approach to a problem set
In each we find that a what might seem to be a less dangerous problem but in truth can be found to be much larger in its overall effect on the environments within which it exists.

Now in an effort to tie this into your initial presentation
It is easier for a Conventional "war fighting unit" to learn COIN skills, than it is for a COIN trained unit to learn or recover "War fighting skills"
Training is the real answer to this(I know big duh)
Honestly wars are fought by individuals the only differentiations in the long run are how many and in what context. Perhaps it is true as many seem to be concerned that working effectively in larger groups takes much more work to perfect than smaller yet potentially just as effective groups. Not to mention that in order to bring to bare resources and capabilities associated with large scale operations requires a much greater effort to collaborate and keep those involved on the same page.

One highly over simplified question is if the foundation isn't as important as the house why even build it. If one accepts that the foundation of any armed forces is the men and women of which it is comprised and then that they must be good at what they do then learn to do it together; would it not make just as much sense that the same premise follows all the way through to the highest levels. If one brigade commander has one really well trained battalion and several more not so much how well will they stand against a moderately well trained collection of battalions. Same for a Div, Corps, Army, etc.

If you get 6 Brigades trained well in infantry and supporting functions and each of their mechanized counterparts are equally comfortable with their tasks then the adjustment up or down the scale should be equally doable. Either extreme would seem to make it excessively difficult to transition without considerable hardship and unfortunate costs both human and otherwise.

It is true that soldiers are not police, it is however equally true that they are not natural born killers(Exceptions aside). They are at the base simply men and women who have chosen to do a job and deserve to be adequately trained to do it. When $#^ hits the fan they can and will adjust up or down as necessary the key is knowing if you've done your job getting them ready for it.

This is why the very argument itself is so unfulfilling, This is NOT a zero sum game whether we would like it to be or not. So despite the fact that there are limited funds and political intrigues, and touchy feely human interests there are men and women who are doing their best and deserve to be given every bit of knowledge, preparation, and skill you can give them.

Seems like we need to quit worrying about what type of war we want, need, expect and put meat and muscle behind every soldier, airmen, marine with whatever we've got to help them do whatever they have to.