Debate over The Generations of War.

[Cavguy]

See the discussion generated in this thread early last year in response to the posting of Fourth-Generation War and Other Myths.

Ahhh ... I committed the sin of not looking for old thread. Perused it and found this gem ...

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.

My major beef isn't the construct so far, it's the linear progression of it - 2/3/4, that I don't buy. I especially don't buy the distinction between 2d and 3d GW. 1GW is also pretty irrelevant. Really all debate is centering around 3d/4th GW, although Bill Lind constantly calls the army a 2GW force.