William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[Cavguy]

Personally, I'm happy to let 4GW as a concept die (and all the GW's). It's bad history, bad theory, and not really useful other than as a metaphor for "not conventional war". Plus the whole 2GW/3GW construct is a bludgeon of Lind's own construction and not really reflective of practice.

[slapout9]

Personally, I'm happy to let 4GW as a concept die (and all the GW's). It's bad history, bad theory, and not really useful other than as a metaphor for "not conventional war". Plus the whole 2GW/3GW construct is a bludgeon of Lind's own construction and not really reflective of practice.

The key point of the 4GW theory that almost always gets buried in discussions about the UW/COIN/FID/Small Wars methods that are used and not used is that the theory is based upon the idea of WHO fights and WHY they fight. That is the part that is different and is also the part that is most often overlooked. I believe it is useful from the stand point that it shows the most likely enemies around the world both known and developing. And they are likely to be based upon Race,Religion and Language not some traditional nation-state-political motivation..

[Bob's World]

"4GW"; "IW"; etc are to my mind all legends we have created to explain what we cannot understand. Humans have always done this over time.

Now, instead of trying to rationalize why there are sea shells on a mountain side, or why the sun rises or the moon goes through phases, we face a much narrower area of human ignorance that leads us to create legends.

Why does a family of "COIN" designed by Western Powers to maintain the profitability of foreign colonies or to contain major threats in the past fail to work equally to stabilize foreign partners today?

Why does the application of war, warfare, and Clausewitzian-logic in general to internal, populace-based conflicts in the modern era either fail to work at all, or if it does, only temporarily so and at a much higher cost to impose and sustain?

It can't be because we never really understood these conflicts to begin with, so it must be because the nature of the conflict itself has somehow changed. Right?

Perhaps. I personally subscribe to the camp (sometimes a lonely campfire to sit around) that we never had this right to begin with. Certainly modern information technologies have (for now) tilted the advantage away from governments and to those population groups who would challenge the systems of governance (foreign and domestic, formal and informal) negatively affecting their lives. But I suspect the nature of such conflicts is not much changed.

That is because the nature of conflict is tied to the nature of man, and not to the technologies man invents.

4GW is a legend that helps some draw comfort regarding something scary and not well understood. But it is not a concept that helps us to deal with such conflicts more effectively. It certainly does not help us better understand how to reduce our own powerful contributions to the causation of such events.

[Steve Blair]

Aren't headshots supposed to bring down zombies?

4GW is nothing new...the only thing that is different perhaps is the pace of developments. Technology speeds up the process, both in terms of execution and commentary, but that's about it, really. WHO and WHY people fight has always been at the core of things, no matter what generational theory you subscribe to. Only someone who's ignorant of the history of conflict at all its levels would claim otherwise...or claim to have "discovered" that particular nugget.

[Taiko]

Aren't headshots supposed to bring down zombies?

4GW is nothing new...the only thing that is different perhaps is the pace of developments. Technology speeds up the process, both in terms of execution and commentary, but that's about it, really. WHO and WHY people fight has always been at the core of things, no matter what generational theory you subscribe to. Only someone who's ignorant of the history of conflict at all its levels would claim otherwise...or claim to have "discovered" that particular nugget.

Double tap will bring one down, burning it with fire will keep it down

[slapout9]

Perhaps. I personally subscribe to the camp (sometimes a lonely campfire to sit around) that we never had this right to begin with. Certainly modern information technologies have (for now) tilted the advantage away from governments and to those population groups who would challenge the systems of governance (foreign and domestic, formal and informal) negatively affecting their lives.

Except that is one of the concepts of 4GW, which is why they constantly point out that nobody has won one yet. And they also point out that it is not new..... just changing from the present nation-state based system "back" to the older kinds of warfare that used to be conducted.

[slapout9]

2007 radio interview of Bill Lind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hjQOMlpH9A

[TheCurmudgeon]

I don't care for the Generations of War construct. Short of technological advances the changes have occurred mostly in the political world. Much of this "non-state" nonsense is the result of westerners drawing arbitrary lines on the ground to define states. Truth be told "Nations" (groups of people sharing a common identity, history, religion, and language) have always fought against "States" (political entities that claim a monopoly on legitimate violence within a prescribed portion of the earth's surface) when their beliefs about what it right and what is wrong clash.

As for fighting for eternal salvation, I would suggest that that started long before the last century with the Crusades being the most well known example. Wars of identity - be it religion or ethnicity - have always existed.

If I really wanted to argue generations of war, my construct would be based on human needs. The first generation wars, conducted primarily by hunter-gatheres, were over food and women. The second generation wars, which occurred through most of recorded history, were wars of collective identity. Nations against Nations (and sometimes against States). The third generation are wars of individual identity - wars for individual rights (democracy) and sometimes wars for religions that offer individual salvation (christian and Islamic wars in particular). These wars are the most savage because in these wars each individual has his own reason to fight. He does not need a tribal or political leader to push him forward, only an idea of what the ultimate truth is. Today, with the advent of rapid communications, these wars can spread like wildfire. There are no peace treaties in these wars. There is often no single leader who can claim victory or concede defeat. Only exhaustion and a temporary reprieve. Force has limited value. You can't kill your way to victory in these wars - you would have to kill an idea. Accommodation, if it is even possible, is probably the only way out of these conflicts.

[slapout9]

William S. Lind has not just returned with an occasional article he now has a blog that he started on the 4th of July. Here is the Link
http://www.traditionalright.com/