COIN Check - Scrap COIN And Focus On Asia?
 

Hmmm...and so it goes...

Richard :munchin

U.S. Military To Scrap COIN; Focus on Pacific, Says Vice Chairman
AOLDefense, 17 Nov 2012

The United States, which rushed to replace and rebuild its ability to wage counter insurgency warfare over the last decade, must plan for a new future in the Pacific and leave COIN behind.

That was the bold message of Adm. James "Sandy" Winnefeld speaking here at the Strategic Command Cyber and Space conference. While there have been clear indicators that this is the direction in which America's military was moving. Winnefeld's speech is far and away the clearest statement of what he called this new strategy.

"We are not likely to have as our next fight a counterinsurgency," he said. While America has been teaching its troops Arabic and other regional languages, training them how to win friends and influence people at the village and provincial levels, "the world has changed," Winnefeld said. America's enemies and competitors are "coming up with new asymmetric advantages. They've been studying us closely...," he said. So, "we need to avoid the temptation to look in our rear view mirror."

Our future conflicts, the vice chairman said, will probably occur "in a far more technically challenging environment." As he described it, the fight will be much closer to a conventional military conflict, characterized by "intense electronic warfighting," swarm attacks and cyberwar.

All this is occurring as 20th century's warfare, characterized by state clashes over "nice bright Westphalian borders" fades to black. Now, "borders are simply fading away," with cyber best exemplifying this trend. "The border between near and far...has been obliterated by the Internet...," the admiral said. The border between public and private is fading, as is the divide between companies and countries, with "some companies acting as countries" and some individuals being used by countries as "proxies."

In the cyber realm, these borders are particularly difficult to spot, when they exist. For example, Winnefeld asked, "at what point dose espionage rise to a hostile act by stripping a nation of its most precious secrets...." If you wanted proof that America has reassessed China, that was a clear shot across the Chinese bow. Of course, this week's announcement that American Marines will effectively be based in northern Australia was also a pretty clear signal to China.

http://defense.aol.com/2011/11/17/u-...mber_197034522

"Either" "or"
 

Is the world really going to be so either and or? Don't we need to be prepared for both possibilities? It would seem with the competition for natural resources in the future, we should be keeping a close eye on China, and prepared for conventional war. That doesn't mean the other crazies are going away, does it? Or, forgive my cynicism, is the article a veiled plea by the navy for a bigger budget?

So what do we read into this.. We, U.S. Military can't do COIN?? NATO inept to conduct COIN?

I think this can send a bad message. This whole technology is better than humans, this is going back to the Clinton era of satellite are better than humans.

CRAZY Talk!!

Thank John Nagl and David Patraeus and guys like him for causing this belief. COIN is how the whole government approaches the problem. Generally, the military applications of COIN are CG Operations. I taught as a COIN instructor at the Combat Advisor course (where Nagl came from) for a year after retirement. They teach d i M e

MOO: When all you have is a hammer, all problems tend to look like nails. The Admiral comes from a technology background(aerospace engineer), so while he raises some excellent points(especially regarding borders, or lack thereof in cyberspace), he may be missing the forest for the trees. Technologists, especially those in the security arena(like myself) tend to look at the symptom versus the cause. Aside from our usual(China, Russia etc) adversaries, much of the cyber war is an extension of the human conflict, and can sometimes be better remedied by boots on the ground versus operators via computer in the bowels of the Pentagon, all in all, it is another attack vector, not necessarily a war in it of itself. Human vulnerability can rarely be "patched", neither foreign policy situations be remedied with a quick code change and an out of cycle QFE patch, while software vulnerabilities can and will be patched on a regular basis. Lastly, the underlying issues that make us vulnerable on the technology side span far beyond the military complex, a better defense may be a good offense against the perpetrators, as opposed to trying to dig in this vast, sprawling system.

Of course, the Army has COIN, the Air Force cyber-command, so it could just be the Navy looking for a piece of the pie.

My .02

COIN will be back as soon as they figure out that we will be fighting proxy wars w China in Africa, S.America, C.America, GIO, and the Pacific Rim - just as we did during the Cold war with those "other" guys.

Cyberwar and the space race is really just another proxy war.

Is that a rhetorical question Brother?

I think that's what they are asking themselves.

BOfH- Yeah symptom versus the cause is the biggest problem U.S. had with COIN. Nicer to look at BAD numbers and "Whitespace" controlled areas. Not really looking at Center of Gravity, 2nd and 3rd order of effects, effects for actions with measures from the actions. Like I've said here, if more SFODAs would have looked at VSO as UW, things would be a lot better. At least for the Regiment.

I think you have just hit the nail on the head :D

Precisely my reaction to this.

Nice extension of the thinking. In cyber terms, the banging on the net defense doors keeps getting louder, from mulitiple (and unfamiliar) directions, with a notable regular increase in sophistication. Viewed that way, a top-level adversary's conduct of that kind of a war is a rather economical thing for them.