Quote:
Originally Posted by Stealhead
I look at Vietnam based on what happened to put it short.I would rather not derail this thread any further nor get into a disagreement with you about Vietnam.Even though one could argue that many mistakes made in Vietnam have occurred in our current wars which shows that we do not seem to fully learn from the mistakes of the wars that we do not win.
|
okeydokey.
Back on topic, I am not sure the article has the right focus. The COIN doctrine used by the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq, i.e.: provide security, hunt for insurgents, push for reforms is tried and true and based on historical precedents.
For a long time, during Vietnam and especially afterwards, there was a strong resistance in the U.S. Army to being dragged into COIN warfare. Many thought the primary job of the Army was to fight conventional military forces, such as Iraq 1991.
Petraeus did not revolutionise COIN, he merely codified it and legitimised it to the point where it is now accepted as in the U.S. Army playbook. Iraq and Afghanistan do not show that the COIN playbook does not work
The article seems to focus more on whether the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were worth it, which is a different topic altogether.