chris_gerrib (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
chris_gerrib) wrote2015-02-09 09:28 am
chris_gerrib) wrote2015-02-09 09:28 am
Entry tags:
4th Generation War Ain't So New
I mentioned that I would have more cogent thoughts on "4th Generation Warfare." Here they are.
William Lind, inventor of the concept, argues that 4th Generation warfare is unique because you have violent non-state actors making war. These warlike acts include psychological warfare, propaganda, terrorism and direct attacks on civilians. He does not see a way for the US to fight and win these wars.
To me, these wars look shockingly like the colonial wars of the 1800s, such as what we fought in the trans-Mississippi west against the American Indians. They also look a lot like the wars England fought in India, Afghanistan and Africa during the same period. In these wars, a small, professional army with limited tolerance for casualties fought larger, diffuse, poorly-equipped groups.
The US and UK won some of these wars and lost a few (Afghanistan). It seems to me that the key to winning was persistence - fielding troops for decades and grinding down the enemy. In cases where there was insufficient strategic reason to grind down (Afghanistan for the UK) the war ended with the withdrawal of the colonial forces.
This was in part because the colonial force had the option to withdraw. In the American West or India, withdrawal was not seen (at the time) as an option, so the troops, the government and the public collectively gritted their teeth and did what they had to do. As somebody a lot smarter than I said, "war is politics by other means." What is politically acceptable governs what wars we fight.
William Lind, inventor of the concept, argues that 4th Generation warfare is unique because you have violent non-state actors making war. These warlike acts include psychological warfare, propaganda, terrorism and direct attacks on civilians. He does not see a way for the US to fight and win these wars.
To me, these wars look shockingly like the colonial wars of the 1800s, such as what we fought in the trans-Mississippi west against the American Indians. They also look a lot like the wars England fought in India, Afghanistan and Africa during the same period. In these wars, a small, professional army with limited tolerance for casualties fought larger, diffuse, poorly-equipped groups.
The US and UK won some of these wars and lost a few (Afghanistan). It seems to me that the key to winning was persistence - fielding troops for decades and grinding down the enemy. In cases where there was insufficient strategic reason to grind down (Afghanistan for the UK) the war ended with the withdrawal of the colonial forces.
This was in part because the colonial force had the option to withdraw. In the American West or India, withdrawal was not seen (at the time) as an option, so the troops, the government and the public collectively gritted their teeth and did what they had to do. As somebody a lot smarter than I said, "war is politics by other means." What is politically acceptable governs what wars we fight.
no subject
What he ought to have said is, no way for the Cold War era US military to fight such wars. “Wot, no uniforms?” The way to win such wars is to think in terms of organized crime, not professional nation-state armies. We don't need drone strikes, we need informers.
Malone: You said you wanted to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I'm saying is, what are you prepared to do?
Ness: Anything within the law.
Malone: And then what are you prepared to do? If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they're not gonna give up the fight, until one of you is dead.
Ness: I want to get Capone! I don't know how to do it.
Malone: You wanna know how to get Capone? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! And that's how you get Capone. Now do you want to do that? Are you ready to do that? I'm offering you a deal. Do you want this deal?
The Untouchables (1987)
-----------------------
Study up on Renaissance Italy, and get nasty. Use sex. Use money. Use knives. Find the ringleaders and leave their heads on pikes… and watch the would-be followers disperse. You hear of any terrorist incidents in Russia lately? No - because after Volgograd, the ex-KGB honcho running that country said, quietly and simply, “We're going to find you, and we're going to kill you.” Ohh-hh, [bleep]…
If the USA manages to elect someone better than a mealy-mouthed Machine Socialist (http://baron-waste.livejournal.com/2169022.html) as chief executive, we may see a bit of realpolitik showing up… quietly.
“This horse-head in your bed is a gift from the people of the U S A!”
no subject
no subject
[I grinned at an editorial cartoon I saw on-line showing Bill Clinton saying, “Miss me yet?” Yah, I'd rather have a President who causes the blowing of raspberries, to one who causes the blowing of “Taps.”]
no subject
Many of us are better able to empathize with strangers than we used to be, and it's harder to persuade us to okay this kind of thing.
no subject
Again, level of national interest matters.
no subject
Additionally, we have made some progress in empathy between WWII (when black people were kept in black regiments and weren't allowed to use certain places of business or sit in the front of the bus, and let's not even talk about attitudes to gays) and now.
no subject
no subject
Naturally, as even Hermann Goering recognized, the trick then is to persuade the populace that they are in that situation, whether or not (particularly when not) the situation is that dire. Thus the trailer-park jingoism about how invading Iraq and Afghanistan was “fighting for our freedom” or even weirder, “fighting for our country.” Only if that's what they were doing, could what they were doing be accepted without complaint!