The David Kilcullen Collection (merged thread)

[Bill Moore]

Gentlemen,

As defined by Hammes we are definitely (there is no gray area) involved in a 4GW fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One aspect I haven't heard discussed much is the difficulty that a democratic country has in dealing with 4GW, vice a totalitarian one. We have certain limitations based on our laws and values that are easily exploitable. Some advocate changing the laws (the big ones in the press are torture, eavesdropping, etc.) to deal with the emergency, but the reality is these wars will last several years, so changing our laws would not a be temporary fix, such as establishing martial law in New Orleans after Katrina.

There are several aspects at the strategic level we have yet to address. In 4GW you can't win the fight on the battleground, but you can lose it there. Please read Hammes's "The Sling and the Stone" for clarification.

Bill

[jcustis]

There are several aspects at the strategic level we have yet to address.

One may be the date when we will finally break our dependence on oil from the Arabian Peninsula.

I was speaking rhetorically on the fourth generation warfare bit. I don't like how theorists try to package everything neatly, then fight over the scraps of who came up with the name first, but I agree that what we face now fits within those parameters.

[Steve Blair]

Gentlemen,

As defined by Hammes we are definitely (there is no gray area) involved in a 4GW fight in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One aspect I haven't heard discussed much is the difficulty that a democratic country has in dealing with 4GW, vice a totalitarian one. We have certain limitations based on our laws and values that are easily exploitable. Some advocate changing the laws (the big ones in the press are torture, eavesdropping, etc.) to deal with the emergency, but the reality is these wars will last several years, so changing our laws would not a be temporary fix, such as establishing martial law in New Orleans after Katrina.

There are several aspects at the strategic level we have yet to address. In 4GW you can't win the fight on the battleground, but you can lose it there. Please read Hammes's "The Sling and the Stone" for clarification.

Bill

I have to admit right from the start that I don't totally buy into the 4GW stuff. I just consider it a more developed (full spectrum, if you will) version of 3GW. Or an adaptation of old techniques to use new weapons and means of operations. That's my disclaimer.

That said, Bill makes a very valid point regarding the lack of serious discussion regarding the ability of an open democracy such as ours to succeed in this sort of warfare where one of the major weapons is PR. The United States has always had great difficulty in this sort of operation, precisely because of our free press and the way the press views its role with regard to government and military operations. Now I'm not advocating in any way changes to freedom of the press, but it's worth remembering that the British in their COIN-type operations (to include Northern Ireland) exercised much tighter control over the press and had more sweeping powers when it came to covert and military/police operations. Also, I would say the nature of our basic political system (with a controlled revolution every two years in the form of elections) makes it especially difficult to develop the kind of long-term, all aspect campaign plan that would be needed for this sort of conflict. Sometimes other countries have succeeded against a 3GW+ adversary because of subtle differences in their political system or the relationship their military has with the remains of a colonial police force.

From a military standpoint, we need things like what Kilcullen and Mattis have put out. Mattis has an exceptional ability to relate his thoughts to the men in the ranks, and that is something that is all too rare in our military today.