Hi Folks,

First off, let me echo Mark's comments about maybe this would be betterin the Kilculen thread <wry grin>.

As a simple dichotomy for analytical purposes, we can say that 4GW’s come in two types, reflecting the degree of involvement of outside interests (obviously there are many other ways to characterize 4GW).

1. Violence between two or more local groups, who can form from any combination of clans, governments, ethnicities, religions, gangs, and tribes.

2. Violence between two or more sides, where at least one is led by foreigners – both comprising, as above, any imaginable combination of factions.
......
The issue is how to distinguish the local groups of a type one 4GW from the foreign groups of a type two 4GW.
There seems to be a basic epistemological assumption operating here that defines "distance" in terms of either physical geography or membership within a nation state: i.e. terms like "local", "foreign", etc. I think that this is a fundamental error.

We have been talking about what constitutes a "nation", or any other type of community, in the information age in another thread (sorry Dave, couldn't find it to link). I've argued elsewhere that it is a combination of shared interest and communicative ability. "Community" does not require geographic proximity or contiguity (which is an assumption that underlies the concept of nation states). Given this, why should we base any typology of conflict on it; especially when it is glaringly apparent that our opponents don't?

I'd like to pose a question for discussion: What if we recast "distance" in terms of perception, "interest" and communication?

Marc