Quote Originally Posted by Hawkwood View Post
Guys,

We ignore the fact that Martin van Creveld and Bill Lind, the ideological fathers of the 4GW mafia and seemingly in competion to be known as the grumpiest military historian on the planet, have consistently been more correct than the pack in predicting how military events would unfold over the last 15 years. Wishing that they weren't just dosen't cut it, just as wishing that western forces with massive capability overmatch weren't strategically all at sea in the Middle East. The core point in the 4GW argument is that it is the collapse of the moral and legal construct of the state that gives the opponent their strength and that trying to put the state back together militarily won't work, the issues of info and lethality proliferation are second tier issues that support this anomaly.

Agree or not with the 4GW construct no one can argue that Armd Divisions, DDGX and F22 Wings, the ultimate evolutionary tools of western warfare, have much utility for the fight we face. Sure we can smash states but we are yet to prove we have the capability or will to build a state. The 4GW argument that it is our inability to conceptualise the issues rather than our military capabilities needs to be considered deeply rather than rejected because its advocates have the personaility of a wire brush.
I've read this article. The primary problem seems to be that Clauswitz deals with States as primary actors and Van Creveld and others (Lind, Robb, Peters, etc.) acknowledge that we are moving in a different direction. One can call this a new mode or an old mode (tribal) however one likes.

The author of the article doesn't address this. IMHO, he misses the whole point of 4GW, which at its root is a very important concept with a malformed name.

I agree with Hawkwood.