George Friedman / StartFor "The death of COIN"

[Scimitar]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqblxeaHlPI&feature=youtu.be

Following up the article recently posted on here, attached is a link to a video of George Friedman debating his opinion on the death of COIN with colleague, Robert Kaplan.

I'm far from an expert on warfare, but I read more then the common man on the current / recent conflicts, it feels like Friedman is getting some of the basic history wrong?

I would be highly interested in comments from those in the know.

Friedman’s basic premise is that we simply can’t afford the horrendous cost of the type of strategic missions that require a significant COIN effort, i.e. Vietnam, Iraq, A-stan.

It feels like they're mixing up FID with COIN and strategic with tactical?

Is it this basic argument that is driving the JSOC / SOCOM move away from the "softer" conflict skill sets and towards a greater focus on DA?

Scimitar

[Surgicalcric]

Things would go much better if the SMEs on it were in command and the CF Cdrs were in supporting roles instead of the inverse.

[bailaviborita]

I would agree that they are confusing COIN with other things- much like the writers of the FM-3-24 rewrite are as well. Why in the world we can't write a general COIN manual and/or prioritize US interests while we assist another nation in their COIN- from large-scale, industrial COIN all the way to light footprint, SOF-only options- is beyond me. Everyone seems to think there is only one way to do COIN and that is expensive, time-consuming, society-changing, etc.- COIN. I call that nation-building.

COIN is not dead- unless SOF refuses to take the lead on future opportunities to reach political objectives through the use of limited COIN efforts- i.e.- SOF-led or SOF unilateral. One team in a country can do COIN- and they don't have to build a Jeffersonian Democracy or give out millions of dollars in aid while doing so...

[Inflexible Six]

The vid is no longer available.


I agree that COIN is not dead. And it doesn't have to be expensive. Big things have small beginnings. I think successful COIN operations can be jeopardized the bigger, more expensive and more complicated they get. There's a tactical and political finesse involved that may require a smaller footprint. My apologies if I am overstepping boundaries here.

[Sigaba]

The [video] is no longer available. The video is available here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc5s6n4joH0).

It feels like their mixing up FID with COIN and strategic with tactical?
I would agree that they are confusing COIN with other things- much like the writers of the FM-3-24 rewrite are as well. Why in the world we can't write a general COIN manual and/or prioritize US interests while we assist another nation in their COIN- from large-scale, industrial COIN all the way to light footprint, SOF-only options- is beyond me. Everyone seems to think there is only one way to do COIN and that is expensive, time-consuming, society-changing, etc.- COIN. I call that nation-building.
MOO, in addition to the mixing of definitions, a concept missing from the discussion is grand strategy.

IMO, the conversation demonstrates that although there's a huge difference between critical historical analysis and contemporaneous second-guessing, that line is easily crossed.