Well the 4GW spirit is out of the bottle
Not only iranian but estonian and hungarian military academics have also embraced the 4GW modell. Their understanding of it is similar to those two PLA colonels', basically in this 'new kind of war' everythin' goes, but old fashioned firepower - so to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cavguy
when other, more intellectually honest approaches are available.
May I ask you to let me know where I can find them?
The many misconceptions about WW II always fascinate me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
...If an insurgency does not have a strategic (change of government?) then it's not an insurgency. People do not take up arms for fun. Violence is instrumental, not recreational.
True.
Quote:
I'm not sure I understand this. Defeating Hitler was not Collateral damage free...
Very true and you just hit the tip of the old iceberg. Consider also the damaging (then to the war and future until today...) political interplay between the UK, US and USSR (among others) and the fact that one of Roosevelt's war aims was to strip the colonies from France and the UK, an attempt in which he was generally successful. WW II was a very big, very messy and not well conducted war, lot of failures military and political by all involved. It also was not totally supported by the non combatant population as many seem to believe.
Quote:
That Governments didn't care that much does not define a "new war now that Governments may pretend to care. What you are seeing is merely a form of operations that requires the restriction of force when and if appropriate. It's not new.
Nope -- nor is it guaranteed to be the only venue...
War is war, it doesn't change. Warfare, OTOH
is infinitely varied and changes constantly. Woe be to he who doesn't keep up with the changes... :wry:
War is a state of being; warfare is methodology and practice. That's not just semantic BS, the relevant difference is shown by all those who objected to the 'War on Terror' claiming one could not be at war with a tactical method.