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.
May I ask you to let me know where I can find them?Originally Posted by Cavguy
Nihil sub sole novum.
I think that just shows how poor the overall understanding of War and Warfare may be. It is simply ludicrous in the extreme to suggest that there is a "new kind of War" unless you didn't understand the existing forms of war in the first place.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
With all respect sir, I tend to agree with Steve Metz
Contemporary insurgencies are less like traditional war where the combatants seek strategic victory, they are more like a violent, fluid, and competitive market.
and Gen. Krulak "I feel it will be Stepchild of Chechnya.".
These 'new wars' or conflicts are not the "clean", collateral damage-free and strategically clear (objective: Defeat Hitler, or the Soviet Union) wars we westerners got used to fight. Especially when no future enemy will 'stand up' to a 'fair fight'.
Nihil sub sole novum.
Please call me Wilf, and with equal respect I disagree with Steve on this one. I agree with Colin Gray. 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.
Good man though Krulak may be, lets not get lumbered with another simplistic analogy like "three-block war."
I'm not sure I understand this. Defeating Hitler was not Collateral damage free. About 27,000,000 civilians died. Allied Forces killed 7,000 French civilians during the Normandy Campaign alone, and about 300,000 German civilians in Bombing raids. 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.These 'new wars' or conflicts are not the "clean", collateral damage-free and strategically clear (objective: Defeat Hitler, or the Soviet Union) wars we westerners got used to fight. Especially when no future enemy will 'stand up' to a 'fair fight'.
If you wish to believe that "no future enemy will 'stand up' to a 'fair fight'" then I would ask where you have found the evidence to support this idea.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
The many misconceptions about WW II always fascinate me.
True.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.I'm not sure I understand this. Defeating Hitler was not Collateral damage free...Nope -- nor is it guaranteed to be the only venue...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.
That is a bit troubling. The advent of air power was a new kind of war, add in space operations and planning and new methods of war were adopted, never mind the idea of nuclear weapons opening an entire new form of war, cyber like it or not is likely a new domain even if built on the bones of other forms of war.
I imagine the first generals looking at boats saying "Navy? What? That is no way to wage war. You can't wage war from a boat!".
New or old they are changing and morphing.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
I see most of these as being new dimensions of war, with the exception of nukes and cyber. Why? Nukes gave generals and politicians their first real weapon that could almost instantly annihilate an opponent. Cyber because it is really attacking different areas and operating with parameters that are considerably different from those of more traditional conflict.
And with the navy analogy...the Romans saw boats as just another way to get close to their opponents and send in the Legions. Boarding tactics were a major part of any of their naval engagements. The Athenians, by contrast, had a very different approach. But they were still different dimensions of the same conflict. Nukes and cyber change the boundaries, IMO.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
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...
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.
Said better than I ever could. Thank you.is infinitely varied and changes constantly. Woe be to he who doesn't keep up with the changes...
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.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Wilf
If a rebellion, civil unrest etc. has a long term goal can we call it an insurgency? BTW as a newcomer to COIN is there any broadly accepted definition for IN/COIN?
I have not read his work, I only remembered he forecasted the 'new kind of war'. IMHO this urban guerilla, street gang, militia style MOUT war interwoven with the 24/7 media coverage is not something that has historic precedence.Good man though Krulak may be, lets not get lumbered with another simplistic analogy like "three-block war."
The '1000 bomber raid' and similar operations were clearly NOT aimed at military objectives. The first Schweinfurt attacks yes. But not most of the attacks in 1945, and not the night ones. In that sense only the french casulties you mentioned can be called collateral damage. The rest were victims of intended genocide mostly by the nazis and the soviets. But let's stay on topic.I'm not sure I understand this. Defeating Hitler was not Collateral damage free. About 27,000,000 civilians died. Allied Forces killed 7,000 French civilians during the Normandy Campaign alone, and about 300,000 German civilians in Bombing raids.
Wilf. An enemy whose actions are clearly aimed at reaching media coverage, and not at causing military losses (in the sense of seriously weakening the enemy warmachine), while at the same time hiding among the civilians hoping to avoid the reprisal, based on 'Human rights to everyone' is not something we have seen before. Of course elements of it yes. But not the whole picture.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.
If I were a rational, thinking people I would consider my actions and their consequences before I act against a technically or numerically superior enemy. Of course religious fanatics appear from time to time, but get their a***es whacked real quick, after an inital surprise.If you wish to believe that "no future enemy will 'stand up' to a 'fair fight'" then I would ask where you have found the evidence to support this idea.
But you are right, I reformulate. No sane future enemy will stand up against say NATO and organize its fighting force into neat military units in uniforms ie to put up a fair fight.
In the age of information industrial age armies are as irrelevant as were pre-industrial ones to industrial ones. They still have their validity as deterring force, but the 'succesful' herero or boer war solutions of previous ages cannot be repeated.
Edit
Yours truly Carl has said war is a chameleon. Well it is.
Last edited by UrsaMaior; 12-30-2008 at 06:44 PM. Reason: One more idea
Nihil sub sole novum.
Ursa,
What's 'new' about the nature of war and what makes it 'new'? How does a new tactic indictate a fundamental change in war itself?
Also -- what conditions exist now that compel an adversary to not pursue a conventional war? What makes those conditions enduring?
When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot
hmm
Wilf Owen wrote:
"People do not take up arms for fun. Violence is instrumental, not recreational"
Instrumental for some. States, for example.
Arguably "recreational violence" is an end in itself and a point of recruitment for certain kinds of military forces from tribal raiders, to mercenaries to citizen soldiers where a public demonstration of martial prowess was integral to social concepts of "honor" or future individual political credibility. From counting coup to ethnic cleansing the neighbors who have marginally different customs, taking up arms throughout history has had other pretexts besides strategic political objectives.
I would also argue that some of history's more poorly conceived military ventures failed in part because they were gratuitous gestures of force lacking in a coherent purpose.
Arguably...
True but that does not indicate that such recourse to arms is recreational even though some, a small percentage and generally young and inexperienced may actually enjoy conflict it is unlikely that the majority of groups that take up arms do so for recreation.Also true but again, not a contradiction of Wilf's point. All Movies lack a coherent purpose IMO yet they are seen by some as recreation and by others as instrumental for achieving social change. Movies are not real and some have entertainment value. War is real, it is singularly lacking in entertainment value...I would also argue that some of history's more poorly conceived military ventures failed in part because they were gratuitous gestures of force lacking in a coherent purpose.
...and thus instrumental. Instrumental does not mean "fun free" it just means for a purpose.
If you want to talk movies, I'd say there is an object lesson to be had from studying "The Shield" which is exceptional screen writing and where all violent actions have direct story consequences.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Excellent questions. In my humble and yet not thouroughly researched opinion
ad 1. War was/is/will be a social "activity" if we accept (I do) van Creveld's findings about it (even Keegan's examples in his falied yet interesting try to refute Clausewitz prove it) iMHO it is an inseperable part of human (or maybe male) nature. So it cannot be old new etc only different. New kind maybe.
Therefore it is a 'new kind' to us since the way it is fought (through media driven pseudo military actions), for it is fought (the suport of the popalation's majority), and by whom it is fought (militias, gangs not something we can call a military with OOB's and C4ISR etc.). Yet it is a war since it is waged on states with clearly defined strategic goals.
It is fundamental because it is irrelevant how big your arsenal is. I would quote Boyd here but in my perception he is not really welcome here, so I merely would like to quote a group called Human League (having lived behind the Iron Curtain while they were hip I only know their songs not their backgrounds). So here it goes "You cannot make friends with an M-16." The net effect of globalisation, the collapse of the colonial system not to mention the cold war is that you cant just invade a country and suppress its population with brute force. It's not a new tactic hit and run is as ancient as the ancient scythians or even older. It is a fundamental change in the circumstances. Industrial age is over and the information age is upon us. But it does not mean we must get more information on possible targets through sensors and share it with the others, rather ' He who has more information of the enemy's intents, support and objctives wins.' to paraphrase Sun Tzu.
ad 2. As I already said in one of my answer to wilf, any rational enemy would avoid a direct confrontation with the military technological, organizational superiority of the West. Why? Because it is obviously counterproductive. As long as we preserve a credible deterring force it wont stand a chance in a classical "clausewitzian" conflict. Therefore if it wants to pursue its goals (and again thanks to globalisation and UN etc. they can be non-state actors as well), it will have to resort to non-conventional means, in which we have a bit poor record.
If we unmake globalisation, and the watcher of human rights (the UN) I don't see any reason not to resort to the ol' victorian methods of brutal population suppression. I am too uniformed to see any of the above coming. But if these are to stay, then classical military operations with army groups and dozens of divisions have ended since any gain from such an industrial style war is insignificant compared to the level of damage evenn the winner has to suffer.
This is my pronouncedly humble opinion since I am yet to publish anything in this issue.
Nihil sub sole novum.
I take your point, if the rational enemy was rational and did not possess equivalent technology of his own. It may be different to ours but is may still be effective.
Don't dismiss 6,000 Toyota Land cruisers all armed with MANPADs and ATGMS
"Classical "clausewitzian" conflict.?" Clausewitz wrote about all conflict. Clausewitz applies equally well to COIN as he does "Big Wars".
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
What?
Anybody who thinks in western civilization violence does not exist for the sake of violence has been in the disciplined world of the military for way to long. Detroit devils night would be a good example. The assertion that people don't engage in violence for no reason other than political is a ludicrous as people rioting when their team wins! Maybe that isn't war, or warfare, or diplomacy, but the assertion appeared to be that people don't engage in violence for acts other than those. To use a word from a previous poster that would be ludicrous.
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
Sure people beat their wives because it makes them feel good, and as Brit I have fairly good, and perhaps shameful personal experience of football violence. I would further add that I my experience, football violence was instrumental. It conferred status.
What I said was,
"People do not take up arms for fun. Violence is instrumental, not recreational"
If you can show me any armed group that has organised for recreational violance and show it as a consistent and persistent trend, that undermines the validity of my comment, I will gladly retract it or re-consider it.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
I suspect that reflection on the second quotation in Wilf's signature block, to wit:is worthwhile to both sides of this debate. Another way of stating this is the old saw "that's the exception that proves the rule."
BTW, I suspect that the comparison commits an error akin to trying to answer this question: "Is it colder in the winter or the country?"
A better framing of the debate would, IMHO, be: Do people routinely engage in violence as a means to some other end or is violence practiced without aim. Accepting the hypothesis that some folks engage in recreational violence still commits one to the position that the violence is not aimless. It is conducted as "a means of refreshment or diversion" to quote Webster's second definition for recreation.
Perhaps the debate should focus on whether the goal of the participation in violence is more or less noble, worthwhile, valuable, etc. Recreation as a goal of violence seems to imply that the end does not justify the means (but I'd be careful saying that at a World Wrestling Fenderation Smackdown event or a major professional boxing event
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
Well, China. Russia, India all possess (sp?) equivavalent technology ie "modern" equipment. But I doubt they will try to 'stand up an' fight' with any sizeable western force. As long as the West has its technological edge in numbers and demostrates its willingness to use it we wont see 6,000 pick ups.
Ok I meant big war, or High intensity conflict. Alas it is another argument for me this chaos of terminology. All society has problems naming new phenomenons. See Kilcullen's relevant article."Classical "clausewitzian" conflict.?" Clausewitz wrote about all conflict. Clausewitz applies equally well to COIN as he does "Big Wars"
Nihil sub sole novum.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks