A COIN is a COIN is a COIN

"Not much"
--Colonel Gian P. Gentile,
on what the U.S. has gained
after two wars in a decade

Mr. Jinx and Miss Lucy,
they jumped in the lake
I'm not that eager
to make a mistake
--Things Have Changed,
Bob Dylan
_________________

We would like to compare Counterinsurgency policy (COIN) to the conclusions drawn by the Nova program, "The Great Inca Rebellion". It explores Pizarro's experience with the Incas which also parallels Cortez's experience with the Aztecs, in that both are very similar to the military policy we now call COIN.

COIN did not start with FM 3-24, nor in Vietnam. The Spaniards used COIN practices to destroy both the Inca and the Aztec empires. (The same can be said for the U.S. Army and its destruction of the U.S. Indian tribes.)

The short version of Pizarro and Cortez is that they organized native armies to act as cannon fodder (lance fodder?) in their campaigns. The white European invaders used native allies to overpower their enemies. This template was used in future colonial efforts, and is still the formula of the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in our current COIN operations. So after 467 years of solid history, how can anyone say that everything has changed?

Since the World Trade Center attacks we've been sold a bill of goods by the military industrial complex, with the full concurrence of the political apparatus: Everything changed, and Counterinsurgency (COIN) was the solution. However, some people are noticing that COIN has not been the spectacular solution it was touted to be; whatever appears to be won on the front end, is lost on the back.

Now, West Point is considering COIN may be dead in the water (West Point is Divided on a War Doctrine's Fate.) Even West Point catches up to Ranger. Asymmetrical warfare was the newest thing since sliced bread, and 3rd and 4th generation warfare theorists were a hot commodity. We are told all of the old rules are passe, and we swallow the new, whole.

Ranger has always called these theories garbage, but that is too kind as even garbage serves a purpose. These theories are obstructive and promote reactionary operational imperatives posing as newfangled thinking. In fact, the principles defining warfare -- the Rules of War, International Law, the Geneva Conventions, the Principles of War and the Hague Conventions -- have not changed; we are not Capt. Picard, and saying they have does not make it so.

Nothing has changed since at least the middle 16th century. The idea could also be applied to Alexander, Hannibal and various armies throughout history.