Not much time...

Getting married in just over a week. Yikes!

Tuesday NPR ran a discussion with a ex-colonel who felt that the insurgency suppression mission was driving the army and costing them capability in the areas of more conventional army like artillery. He had a bunch of reasons he didn't like it which aren't mine. Likewise, he pointed out the biggest argument for it is that counter-insurgency is likely going to be the main job of the U.S. Army in the coming century.

It seems to me that the first job of any army is to protect the borders of their nation from invasion by being able to fight and repel anyone else's army. (I realize that in some cases such as Great Britain, this is the job of the Royal Navy, while their army was used to control colonies, but that is vastly the exception.) Insurgents cannot foreseeably invade and take over our country, not really. Armies schooled in doctrines of tanks and artillery can (assuming they can get here). To train our army to play counter-insurgency at the expense of its capability in its first and primary mission, seems a dereliction of duty to me. It assumes that the only use we will ever need our army for is "over there" and not for our own protection. Yet, the answer to a counter-insurgency force would seem to be a main line army, plus then the people who are being the insurgency might be mad enough to take their army over here and use it on us. Making counter-insurgency our primary training model seems to put the cart before the horse.