According to LTC Gian Gentile, though, FM 3-0 doesn't really matter, because for all intensive purposes, FM 3-24: Counterinsurgency has become the operations manual of the U.S. Army. Gentile is not too happy about this, and in an essay that also runs in Military Review, he takes great exception to a U.S. Army that -- in his eyes -- is now incapable of doing anything but COIN. And he agrees with MG Charlie Dunlap that we can't grow so obsessively focused on counterinsurgency operations that we forget how to do everything else. "Disciples of FM 3-24," Gentile writes, "see themselves as 'out of the box' thinkers when, in fact, they fit very neatly in a ground-based box, one they are un—to look beyond."
More at Abu Muqawama.
Comments
I read Gen Wallaces' article and have these observations just in his opening paragraph alone:
1. The new buzz phrase is "persistent conflict" seems to be an unchallenged fallacy because it is associated with the "current." When hasn't the world been in a persistent state of conflict? Relative to past, is the scope and duration somehow greater than it was in the past or is it just that every generation seems to think theirs is the most turbulent? I think this is a "framing" phrase has a bandwagon effect.
2. The phrase "highly predictable Cold War scenarios" is also another fallacy that approaches jingoism. I beg to differ when we revisit histories of post-WW II Greece, Korea, Suez, French Indochina, and so on.... I doubt that is the way folks who experienced the 50s and 60s would have characterized the "Cold War" (as predictable).
3. "...emphasizing 'how to think' about operations..." is still another fallacy. Do we really want to dictate to our Soldiers how to think? I would suggest our Soldiers would be insulted by insinuating they can be told "what" and/or "how" to think. This has become another catch-all phrase that needs closer examination. In a highly complex environment, we do not need to tell Soldiers/Marines how, what, or why to think a certain way. What we need are Soldiers/Marines who can act and think in unique situations where there is no known way to think. They have to be pragmatic theorists in a way.
The rest of his article? More to follow!
I went to the link and read the rest. I'm not sure he needs to explain anything. I'd say by and large we have benefited from SWC member Gian Gentile's posts.
At first I'd say most members were somewhat skeptical of the rationale and motivations of his arguments, but at least on the SWC he tempered them and concentrated on the logic of his dissent and the consequences of passive acceptance - even if its subliminal.
Someone who challenges me to defend my arguments, or think in uncomfortable directions is value added. I've mentioned it before, but you should not come here with the intent of gaining passive acceptance or sympathetic inclusion - here is a place where you come to get intellectually marked up - how you take it and what you do with it is up to you. Lots of highly skilled folks on the team here.
I often disagree with SWC member Gian Gentile - I know he is LTC (P) - but he is also an interactive member of the council, who regularly posts, and who knows the terms and conditions. To me that makes him more valuable then many who might leave a post, or be cited, but don't follow up and don't inter-act. I suspect he is as busy as anyone here (who is not deployed with consuming responsibilities), but still makes the time.
I may not always like what he writes, but you know - I always read the post or the blog when I see his name - it either causes me to argue, or causes me to challenge my own thoughts, both are stimulants to growth.
Best, Rob