COIN Strategy

716 Words 3 Pages
To compare the United States military to the Russian military would be unfair since the comparison is in different generations. Consequently, the advances and budgetary differences observed through several military technical revolutions of the U.S. Armed forces since the Gulf war, (a period that coincides with the collapse of the Soviet Union), are incredibly disparate. However, the COIN fight is a more accurate gauge than comparing conventional warfare. Insurgent tactics nullify the numerical and technological superiority of conventional forces, and are capable of creating a more level playing field. Several easily identifiable features of note between the two forces are doctrine, centers of gravity, restoration of effective governance and essential services, mission command, cultural understanding, capability building of host nation forces (HNF), and integration of civil-military assets for phase IV stability operations. Doctrine as defined by Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 1-01, (2014) is the …show more content…
In essence, it took an extremely long time for the United States to adopt the current COIN strategy first implemented wholesale by General Stanley McChrystal. The United States and ISAF according to Brand (2011) initiated the first major shift, which significantly improved upon the Soviet experience. ISAF looked inward and developed a population-centric COIN effort rather than the insurgent-centric strategy employed by the Red Army. Simply put, “…the insurgency can afford to lose fighters and leaders; it cannot afford to lose control of the population” (p. 2-11). This leads to the second major improvement the United States learned from the Soviet

Related Documents