I noticed that and wonder if Eric
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
...Before someone flames, please note that I use the word "chum" based on Eric Walters' claim that the whole 4GW/MW construct was a way of baiting Marine to break out of their "business as usual" lethargy and think about how they plan and fight battles/war.
would comment on how successful -- or not -- that effort to change planning and fighting has been?
The RMA is Social--essence of 4GW
My particular take on 4GW is that it is social--and as such is more of the so-called "Revolution in Military Affairs" (RMA) than most of the "Military Technical Revolution" (MTR) stuff -- to use a Soviet phrase -- I typically have seen in the old "Transformation" days.
To quote Trotsky, the essence is 4GW for America is this: "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you." The best illustration is Flight 93 on 9/11. Classes of society who were kept away from war, not intended to fight war, nevertheless were "liberated" by the circumstances into organized violence--in this instance, against the terrorists who seized the plan. The struggle for the jet--both in the seizure of it by the terrorists and the retaking of it by the passengers--show all the signs of 4GW and, coincidentally enough, SBW (Slapout-Based Warfare). And where was the law enforcement community? Where was the federal government's military in this? Citizens improvised effective organized violence using every day objects. I think we're going to see a lot more of this in the future...in many other realms of human activity where violence can be mounted.
Whither the U.S. military in such circumstances? Maybe we just don't play there--we confine ourselves to state versus state conflicts. But as General Tony Zinni likes to say of Marines, "Oh, we indeed do windows." The question is, how do we do "windows" in this 4GW world?
Haven't quite figured that out yet.