Nice article. Metz has posted here occasionally. What's missing is a strategic doctrine shaping our use of COIN as a military art. Our predilection to see COIN as an element of state-craft may be an issue in the absence of nation-states worthy of the name with which to partner. Iraq and Afghanistan are proving that successful COIN ops will require, likely, decades of close involvement. We seem unprepared to do so with those two nations and show less eagerness to add to that list.
That's good because our energies remain mis-directed for various reasons above the military-operational level. "M" dominates diMe, and that's not good.
The greater questions, to me, seem if the future portends an absence of viable nation-states with which to partner, what should our strategic objectives/expectations be and how must we re-configure to attain them? Is it feasible to actively seek local (and marginal) solutions that provide no unifying payoff for the effort extended?
Witness Iraq. What will connect local successes generated by U.S. forces to a national reconciliation or even a more closely-focused sunni-shia rapproachment? We still miss the strategic dimension with little foreseeable hope on the horizon.
Nice find.
