For those of you who know what today's definition of 4GW, do you believe the war in Iraq is a 4GW? Or becoming one?
And if don't know what it is here are some links:
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190..._031004,00.html
(Two articles here) http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_g...ion_warfare.htm
http://antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/awc-futr.htm#4gw
A definition of 4GW:
“The Fourth has a goal of collapsing the enemy internally rather than physically destroying him. Targets will include such things as the population’s support for the war and the enemy’s culture.”
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3273, old post ID:59649
Iraq: A Fourth Generation War?
Iraq: A Fourth Generation War?
Never argue with an idiot. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience every time.
Iraq: A Fourth Generation War?
I read:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/lind.pdf
I have to say I disagree with a lot of Lind and his colleagues' conclusions, definitions, etc. His definitions of the generations of war seem a bit myopic and oversimplified. I'll explain why I feel this way further later - don't have the time or energy tonight.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3273, old post ID:59652
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/milreview/lind.pdf
I have to say I disagree with a lot of Lind and his colleagues' conclusions, definitions, etc. His definitions of the generations of war seem a bit myopic and oversimplified. I'll explain why I feel this way further later - don't have the time or energy tonight.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3273, old post ID:59652
Iraq: A Fourth Generation War?
I suppose that his generations make sense, to a point since he starts them with the Treaty of Westphalia. However, I don't understand why he feels he must start there. It seems more to me that such a narrowly focused timeframe, that not only disregards the history of warfare pre-1648 but also disregards non-European warfare from 1648-present is more about constructing reality around an idea, rather than constructing an idea around reality. A greater analysis of the cycles of warfare makes more sense to me.
You would think by his definition of the Fourth Generation that revolutionary movements, guerilla tactics, and terrorism are "new" within the time period between 1648 and now. Of course he says in the article linked above:
"We also are not saying that Fourth Generation tactics are new. On the contrary, many of the tactics Fourth Generation opponents use are standard guerrilla tactics. Other tactics, including much of what we call terrorism, are classic Arab light cavalry warfare carried out with modern technology at the operational and strategic, not just tactical, levels."
He also fails to point out in anything I've read so far (not saying he DOESN'T point it out - I just haven't seen it) is that what type of war you face depends largely on who you're fighting, which includes elements of geography, culture, national ideology, and so on. During the American Revolution, for example, you had a revolutionary force that, especially early on, was significantly weaker than the great power of Britain, and resorted to classic guerrilla tactics. As these in themselves weren't decisive enough to guarantee victory, it kept the fighting going long enough to harm the confidence of the British military and gain outside support. Revolutionaries throughout time resorted to assassinations, terrorism, and unconventional military tactics - this didn't end in 1648, nor did it begin at any time since.
It's funny, too, that Lind seems quite eager to use Islamists as examples of 4th Generation nonstate actors. You would think that only Islamists have been the terrorists of the last century, fighting unconventional wars against nation-states and so on. He makes no mention of Comintern from the good ol' days of the Cold War. He also makes no mention of the variety of terror groups who waged "war" with nations during the 20th century, from Europe to Japan, inspired by Communist ideology.
I don't believe Lind's view of the four generations of war since 1648 is broad or comprehensive enough to have much merit. For Heaven's sake, in the article linked in my previous post where he explains it, he makes no mention of nuclear weapons, whose very existence defined the Cold War and the way it was fought. Like I said earlier, I think he's taken an idea he has and tried to shape history and reality in order to present it as making sense or being valuable.
***edit: bolded a section to make my point/emphasis clear.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3273, old post ID:59756
You would think by his definition of the Fourth Generation that revolutionary movements, guerilla tactics, and terrorism are "new" within the time period between 1648 and now. Of course he says in the article linked above:
"We also are not saying that Fourth Generation tactics are new. On the contrary, many of the tactics Fourth Generation opponents use are standard guerrilla tactics. Other tactics, including much of what we call terrorism, are classic Arab light cavalry warfare carried out with modern technology at the operational and strategic, not just tactical, levels."
He also fails to point out in anything I've read so far (not saying he DOESN'T point it out - I just haven't seen it) is that what type of war you face depends largely on who you're fighting, which includes elements of geography, culture, national ideology, and so on. During the American Revolution, for example, you had a revolutionary force that, especially early on, was significantly weaker than the great power of Britain, and resorted to classic guerrilla tactics. As these in themselves weren't decisive enough to guarantee victory, it kept the fighting going long enough to harm the confidence of the British military and gain outside support. Revolutionaries throughout time resorted to assassinations, terrorism, and unconventional military tactics - this didn't end in 1648, nor did it begin at any time since.
It's funny, too, that Lind seems quite eager to use Islamists as examples of 4th Generation nonstate actors. You would think that only Islamists have been the terrorists of the last century, fighting unconventional wars against nation-states and so on. He makes no mention of Comintern from the good ol' days of the Cold War. He also makes no mention of the variety of terror groups who waged "war" with nations during the 20th century, from Europe to Japan, inspired by Communist ideology.
I don't believe Lind's view of the four generations of war since 1648 is broad or comprehensive enough to have much merit. For Heaven's sake, in the article linked in my previous post where he explains it, he makes no mention of nuclear weapons, whose very existence defined the Cold War and the way it was fought. Like I said earlier, I think he's taken an idea he has and tried to shape history and reality in order to present it as making sense or being valuable.
***edit: bolded a section to make my point/emphasis clear.
Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:3273, old post ID:59756