Quote Originally Posted by TT View Post
.

1. Back in 1989, at the very heart of the 4GW concept what their argument that the state would face a growing crisis of legitimacy, which would increasingly weaken its authority over social organization and its monopoly on the use of force.

2. Proponents of this theory identified (with hindsight, reasonably accurately) the blurring nature of future conflict, especially the blurring of war and peace, the blurring between combatants and non-combatants, and the blurring of what constitutes the battlefield (the collapse, or compaction, of the strategic/operational/tactical levels of war), with conflict being non-linear and unbounded (by this I mean that such entities will use techniques and approaches – such as terrorism – not used by formal military organizations and that there are no front and rear – our societies and our beliefs are immediately pertinent targets)
Very useful summation TT. Many thanks.

1. Legitimacy. Exactly. Mao wrote about it. The Legitimate use of force is the essential under-pinning of all else. I don't think the state has a crisis in using force, IF it is used legitimately - which is the challenge. Why don't 4GW people just emphasise this without constructing all the 4GW stuff?

2. Why future conflict? Based on that description we had 4GW back in the Hussite Rebellion, the various and very annoying Welsh, Irish and Scottish rebellions and the actions of the secessionist living in His Majesties Colonies in the Americas. . Look at how the French kicked the British out of medieval France. The Indian Mutiny?

...so being that this is all fairly fundamental stuff, how can it get called 4GW, and who benefits from doing so?