From what I can tell, 4GW has been used since about the beginning of time. Analyze any historic period where native populations are being subdued or where they are becoming restless again. You'll see right there almost every single tactic which these so called military theorists insist amount to 4GW being used by the natives.
Case in point, the Apache Wars from about 1850-1880. For about twenty years, most of what is now New Mexico and Arizona was completely cut off from US control. They ambushed, stole expensive items, ripped up rail tracks, scared settlement populations, blew up telegraph lines, spread myths of barbarous treatment and ghosts in the hills, all in a very informal heavily decentralized way.
Or how about this for apropos Fed? Take the final wave of uprisings in the late thirties and early forties in India. Where "leveraged attacks" by "inexpensive" bomb makers were used very effectively with what is perhaps the most asymetric of all warfare, non-violence. Was that a 4GW? Sure it was.
But that just makes it all the more plain don't it? The only way to when a "4GW" war or a 5GW war or whatever the fuck they are calling it these days, the only way to win a war against an insurgent native population is, here's the punch line, to colonize them!
And this country just doesn't have the stomach for the grueling and vicious nature of colonization. We aren't an empire because our people don't want to be one. So let's stop it with the warfare evolution mumbo jumbo and just be honest and acknowledge that fact. Certainly would make my life a lot easier. What we are witnessing is not 4GW. It is a failed "soft" colonization policy which over and over again throughout history has been shown to be completely worthless.
While I do not accept all the premises offered by advocates of 4GW, it should not be confused with LIC or guerilla warfare either. That's not what theorists like Lind or van Creveld are arguing. Certainly there is an overlap of tactics present but it isn't the same phenomenon.
Look here Mark, I'm not trying to ruffle your intellectual feathers. I just don't see what it is you and the other "theorists" like Van Creveld and Lind see. Maybe I'm looking at it from a "practitioners" point of view or maybe I'm just looking at all wrong. Bottomline for me is that 4GW misses thee mark.
Let's start with my favorite premise, and Fed's favorite too I believe.
War is a constant.
From this follows that only battles are won or lost. Since I'm gathering from your website you'd prefer a more historical approach.
Let it look like this then. The first world has been in a war with the third world since the industrial revolution. All "wars" fought since that time which include parties in the first and third world respectively are merely battles in this war.
Most of the 4GW bandwagon argues that historical LIC and asymmetric warfare were merely sideshows to the main battles. Somehow these weren't part of the main event, but like Forest's cavalry in the Civil War, LIC was just a distraction.
That's only true in battles between states. Specifically, western styled, heavy infantry army to army combat.
But that contradicts what we started with right? Western to western battles fought since the industrial revolution are not part of the main "war" between the first and third world?
It's only from a bird's eye view that we can really see the truth of this. Ain't you ever wondered why it is that so many fly boys are 4GWers? Prolly cause they don't think along the same heavy infantry, army to army combat lines of thought. Don't ya think?
LIC, asymmetric warfare, and guerrilla operations were and are the real deal for the warriors who happened to be outside the main western paradigm. Most definitely since the industrial revolution, when third worlders have been in battle with first worlders, they've relied on what they know best.
The only difference between the guerrillas of a century ago and the guerrillas of today is that the guerrillas of today have TV. When the enemy is on TV that changes everything!
Now we need flashy theories and high priced military consultants to come in and tell us what we already know: the enemy is fighting us where we ain't, and they're kicking our asses at it.
mark: you make a good point, 4GW should not be confused with LIC. but i think smith's point is also well made, in the field its all the same. this is more a problem of theory / practice, as smith alluded to. but at the same time, at least i tend to think this way, when the field continues to report back inconsistent results than what the theory calls for, the theory is what needs changing.
that's a long way of saying that maybe there is no "grand strategy"? or at least, no room for it. maybe there is no way to "win"? maybe there is simply just eternal strife?
in that case, we wouldn't say 4GW foretells the end of the nation state, but rather that the nation state continually comes in and out of existence, as does it contrary.
did that make any sense?
Hi J. Smith
Not to worry, I don't ruffle easily. Without good critics, thinking becomes sloppy or rigid. Fair points of of them.
Well, you are correct, I'm approaching this from more of a historical perspective. A platoon leader on patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan or wherever probably isn't too concerned with abstruse theories so much as pragmatic, here and now, immediate military concerns. I agree.
Now, since you have put me in the odd position of defending William Lind ( I'm critical of him about half the time)he has written quite a bit in the interest of those who do COIN and he studies the military history of the great state vs state conflicts quite seriously (All the moreso van Creveld, a highly regarded military historian). He simply believes that the era of massed tank battles between great powers like Kursk aren't likely to come again. And frankly, it isn't likely between the most developed and modern states.
So, what use is 4GW theorizing to practitioners like yourself?
In my view 4GW is helpful in explaining why the Iraqi insurgency isn't like the Vietcong or pre-modern tribal raider warriors like Ghazis or Apaches -structurally or strategically- and will not behave much like them in the long run. Apaches were not going to overthrow the USG or even thought along those lines. That is probably of more use to those who do operational planning or command larger units.
For smaller units, you alluded to the importance of TV ( and the internet) - you're right, it is important -it's a qualitative change that puts the political and moral effects of military operations front and center for field commanders in a way that was not the case in WWII or even Vietnam. This is a major theme for the 4GW school.
Previously those worries were higher up the food chain - like Lucius Clay in West Berlin facing Russian tanks - today it could be a Lt. or Capt. in Mosul who makes global news. And perhaps not in a good way. That changes the environment for decision-making significantly and puts the weight on less experienced shoulders. In that instance, every little bit of knowledge helps prior to having to make a decision in the heat of the moment.
Again, I am not a partisan of 4GW per se, but I think there are useful conceptions there particularly where you have whole regions of failing and failed states.
"in that case, we wouldn't say 4GW foretells the end of the nation state, but rather that the nation state continually comes in and out of existence, as does it contrary.
did that make any sense?"
Negatory there Fed X. Made no sense at tall.
Mark, I agree with you on the point about no more tank battles. I guess at the end of the day we're really just talking a different vocab while meaning the same thing. But I disagree with you on the point about the Apaches. They wanted the white settlers out of their existence. Put that in the most simple language.
The plains Indians want settlements to go away.
Who says that today? Saudi Arabians? Or Palestinians?
It is the first urge, the first instinct, of any occupied people. Settlers out! As I tried to point out, "Quit India!". This is an instinct felt acutely by those on the front. The ones seeing their women getting smacked around by the alien force, or the ones watching their daughters chase after the foreign soldiers, or the ones watching their sons get consumed by hatred towards the outsiders. That is as primordial as it gets. "Strangers Begone!"
The second urge, "overthrow their government" comes about by those behind the lines. Those who have had the time to see the foreigners slowly move in on what was once distantly their turf. OBL didn't live in Palestine. And not many Palestinians want the US overthrown. OBL lived in one of the most privileged societies on earth. He had time to think this through. A luxury paid for by Americans by the way. So this second usually more isolated group are the ones who respond strategically to creeping invasions of foreigners.
The plains Indians never had that group. The colonization was as swift as it was deadly. And I will argue with anyone about that. When you are in a colonization campaign, you must do it as quickly as possible.
We are in a colonization campaign. "Globalization" or whatever you want to call it at the end of the day is nothing more than a re-colonization of the third world. A softer, gentler type of colonization.
Because it is softer, because it is gentler, it allows that second urge to fester for a very long time.
If we want the commodities and labor that these places provide, we are going to have to take them forcibly. We are going to have to colonize them swiftly.
If we don't want the stuffs they offer, or at least, don't need them all that badly, we should leave them alone and focus on ourselves.
This isn't as much about the end of nation-states or a new generation of warfare as it is about a turning point in a centuries long war between the haves and the have nots.
If you would concede that the Quit India movement fits the 4GW framework, along with the non-violent independence movement inspired by Gahndi, then I think I would take it a little more seriously. But from what I can tell, 4GWers want to disassociate their theory from anything that old. Which
Mark, I wanted to run another question by you if you're still around. You said the VC is quite different from the Iraqi insurgency. I agree and disagree with this.
The VC were a grassroots org with big brother support. This is almost exactly like some of the most militant wings of the Shia insurgency.
The Sunni insurgents in Iraq are mainly a stay behind op, originally planned during the Iran-Iraq War (with our help undoubtedly) and now being used against us. They are not a grass roots org. Not reflective of the popular sentiment I mean. And they don't have any big brother support, unless you count Saudi Arabian sugar daddies.
That is what gives Rumsfeld and the others such confidence that just weathering this thing out will produce solid results. The op has an expiration date. Just not sure when that is.
Maybe 4GWers should look into the extensive stay behind ops planned during the cold war. If those patterns were simply re-emerging in other areas, would that be a new generation of warfare or just a well versed enemy?
Hi J Smith
The VC were locals but the party discipline, policy and funding came from Hanoi which viewed the Southerners as expendable ( Tet).
Iraq is very complex. Many of the " foreigners" in the insurgency come from two places - Southeastern KSA, two tribes in particular and through Syria ( experienced Jihadis) Local Iraqis come in many varieties, Tribals, Sunni zealots, nationalists, ex-Baath, Shiite extremists. Perhaps if Diem never crushed the delta sects South Vietnam and Iraq would have looked more alike
"Maybe 4GWers should look into the extensive stay behind ops planned during the cold war"
You're absolutely right. This is SPETSNAZ textbook doctrine for behind the lines operations.
more like d boys than SPETSNAZ. probably both id guess.
Commenting by HaloScan
