Fourth Generation Warfare: the new face warfare

[Waylander]

No, what I meant with "should not think about" are the solutions like done in the past.
With leveling whole cities, clearing landstrips of people, etc.
These strategies worked also but they are no possible solution for ou societies (And I am glad about this ).

 

[merocaine]

double post

 

[merocaine]

The idea that non state actors would take up arms is'ent revolutionary! It's always happened! Its not something new its bloody common sence. Ask a policeman.

Generally a higher generation of warfare will defeat a lower generation since it is more higher developed in ideas and ways of applying accessible technology (or the lack thereof).

So 4th generation warfare?? eg guirrila warfare will defeat 3th generational warfare?? eg combined arms warfare. Surely that would come down to tactics, troops, leadership, political will?
This idea is rubbish, its nothing to do with "more higher developed ideas". Put it this way if Britian decided to invade Ireland, all the assymetrical warfare in the world would'ent save us, we would be swamped, the whole idea of generational warfare is absurd.

Basical the whole thing boils down to this, regular troops are at a disadvantage when fighting irregular troops in a hostile population, no shit...
Right thats about it is'ent it? the rest is just window dressing that doesent make much sense. I guess the British and French discovered this when they were fighting in America, or perhaps the French did in corsica and Spain, or the British in afganistan, or the Romans in Judea, or the Normans in Wales, or the Chinese in Vietnam, or the Elesibethians in Ireland....

At the end of the day its not a theory, its common sense, the 4th generation concept is absurd. If you could run this by any colonial commander in history, they would keel over laughing
"people get paid to write this stuff!!, why all you have to do is burn the damn villages!! the natives simmer down alot after that..."

 

[SimT]

Of course it's common sense, nobody says it's new. The thing is just that for military strategists identifying the nature of a conflict is necessary in order to present a good solution.

(and Waylander, I see you point now small misunderstanding)

 

[SimT]

Merocaine, you stated exactly why 4th generation warfare wins from 3rd. What it does is adapt to the weaknesses and strengths these non-state actors have against advanced armies using a 3rd generation strategy and turning that into an assymetric solution for them.

But you are completely correct when saying commanders in history will laugh this theory away. And that also explains why Che Guevara, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Aidid (the elder) and right now Iraqi insurgents are able to defeat real armies.

The generational thinking should not be seen as a solution, or a ready-to-use strategy to win from an opposing force, it only serves to identify the basic nature of a conflict, each generation in this way of thinking requires different actions to be taken in order to be successful, and as such it is important for military strategists to know exactly which set of actions they are able to choose from.

 

[Grand Danois]

What is the capacity "4th Gen warfare" to win a war on foreign soil? Can it project power credibly and with persistence?

No.

Every armed struggle is about identifying the strengths and weaknesses of your enemy. Is this new?

No.

The primary tool of "4th Gen warfare" seem to be brutality and spreading fear, since it is to weak to do neither mainforce nor squadlevel fights without getting wiped out.

The impact is upon those who cannot protect themselves or be protected.

The civilians.

 

[merocaine]

The thing is just that for military strategists identifying the nature of a conflict is necessary in order to present a good solution.

Or at least one that makes you look clever!

I'm actually of the opinion that the main goal for the United States to win Iraq should be on the diplomatic level as well as on the military level trying to adapt to the 4GW challenges posed in Iraq. This is of course easier said than done.

If you want to win in Iraq you should look at how the russians 'won' in Checnya. To defeat the Insurgency the Russians elimiated(murdered the young men, left the old) the Civilan population from the rebel areas. No Civilians, no Rebels. At the sametime they backed there Chechen Allies to the hilt, giving them money, weapons, and all the political backing (protection) they wanted. Sure Chechens are pretty thin on the ground outside grozny, but hey they won. Historically the Russians fought a classic counter insurgency campain (actually Checnya was de facto independent). Sure it was old school but they won. It was how the British passified the Irish whenever we got to uppity. We're just lucky they grew a consionce in the 20th cenuary. Its how the west was won as well, what indian tribe lived on your land and where are they now, that can be somebodies (heh) history project.
Another classic counter insurgency campain was the National Assembly's actions to suppress the royalist rebellion in bretonny. Also very effective, and very heavy on the bodycount. But it was the last royalist rebelion.
The British were lucky on two counts in greece, 1 the commies werent to popular in greece, and 2 Uncle Joe cut them off, your on your own boys. The Fasists, British, and Greek othodox Church were a winning combo.

The French and Americans failed in vietnam because they could'ent act in the same manner, they just killed enough of the locals to make them hate them like poision. Iraq is falling into the same pattern, the coalition is killing enough iraqis to make them hated, but not enough to make them feared. The worst of both worlds.

If they want to 'win' first they back the Shia to the hilt,(not backstab them by ignoring what the Kurds are planning to do up north) second they start real negotiations with Iran, then they go to the Sunnis and tell them that your going to let the Iranians and the Iraqi Shia impose there solution on the Iraqi Sunnis. You either accept the Iraqi goverment or we let the Shia do as they please, and we will activliy help them.
That would split most of the moderate insurgents away from the islamists.
Some of them are already more than willing to talk to the americans, they know what will happen when the Americans leave.
If the Sunnis were handed an ulitmatim, effectivley, submit die or exile, they will submit, then you can start being nice to them. Otherwise you can try to build all the water treatment plants and faulty generators you want, but the insurgents will still think you a pussy.

 

[SimT]

Well I can't argue with all the points you are making obviously, I'm only trying to explain and defending a concept made by others.

Grand Danois (love your avatar by the way), you are absolutely correct when you say all warfare is about finding the weaknesses of the other, but I think that actually is what these generations present. 2GW uncovered a weakness of 1GW by using new technologies (such as the machinegun), 3GW uncovered weaknesses of 1GW and 2GW by using the idea of manoeuvre warfare, 4GW uncovered the weaknesses of all the previous ones by simply applying strategies that render most conventional armies useless.

You are correct when you say 4GW can not be used to project power on foreign soil. There is no clear answer for that in literature on 4GW but I personally see 4GW as a one-sided initiative. The liberating or invading force would in fact have to use a strategy which is adapted to countering 4GW, call it counter-4GW or anything you want. But in my eyes it is certain that this strategy would not be the same as conventional 1-3GW strategies used in history.

Even if the generational thinking can not be followed I think that we can't deny that the specific problems defined under this explanation as "4GW" have not yet been succesfully solved, and as such the actual consequence that flows from the whole generational thinking is still the same as the conclusion that you would all come to...

And that is that we need to find a solution for such military challenges on which we can draw now and in the future.

 

[Grand Danois]

Grand Danois (love your avatar by the way),...

I'm quite fond of it too.

...you are absolutely correct when you say all warfare is about finding the weaknesses of the other, but I think that actually is what these generations present. 2GW uncovered a weakness of 1GW by using new technologies (such as the machinegun), 3GW uncovered weaknesses of 1GW and 2GW by using the idea of manoeuvre warfare, 4GW uncovered the weaknesses of all the previous ones by simply applying strategies that render most conventional armies useless.

It could be a fair distinction.

You are correct when you say 4GW can not be used to project power on foreign soil. There is no clear answer for that in literature on 4GW but I personally see 4GW as a one-sided initiative. The liberating or invading force would in fact have to use a strategy which is adapted to countering 4GW, call it counter-4GW or anything you want. But in my eyes it is certain that this strategy would not be the same as conventional 1-3GW strategies used in history.

Where "4GW" seem to focus its effort is on perceptions. Fear and brutality on the battlefield and sense of purpose/futility on the invaders home front.

That makes it a matter of the values of the invaders electorate or accountability of its leadership.

I'd say in total war or in a war of survival "3GW" wins hands down over "4GW", simply because it is ultimately able to visit magnitudes more misery to the "4GW" enemy than it can deal back.

Chechnya.

Even if the generational thinking can not be followed I think that we can't deny that the specific problems defined under this explanation as "4GW" have not yet been succesfully solved, and as such the actual consequence that flows from the whole generational thinking is still the same as the conclusion that you would all come to...

And that is that we need to find a solution for such military challenges on which we can draw now and in the future.

It's hard to say. Using the tools we (Europeans) apply today in, say, Afghanistan may or may not be the right ones. The odds are stacked against it from the outset and that doesn't help shore up commitment... But these are the tools available, as our values deny the use of brute force. This is not a fight for our survival.

 

[merocaine]

I'm only trying to explain and defending a concept made by others.

Sorry dude, I kind of fly off the handle when I presented with grand unifying theories of anything let alone war.
The problems with I have with theories like generational warfare, are they dressing up of mundane concepts as penetrating insight. There seems to be a belief that if you can define a concept, it means there is a playbook on how to deal with the problem. Which is fine when your talking about a sink, or wiring a house. But not when your dealing with a insurgency. Every conflict is unique, most dont fit into the definition of generations, no matter how cunningly constucted. You are in effect trying to define the undefinable.
There is no one size fits all concept, and to aim for that is silly. Because no matter how clever the theoy is, at some stage it will come up against reality.
The Brightest and the Best lost the Vietnam war, all there plans went aray, and you know what? they were suprised! everything that seemed to work on paper, never had the same result on the ground( except the phonix project, but that was put together pretty much on the ground by guys who had got there hands dirty).
Some guys like Mc Namara have recently tried to figure out what went wrong, check out 'The Fog Of War' a very smart guy, but maybe not very wise.

 

[SimT]

Ah, Grand Danois, you are right, that is something I forgot to mention about 4GW I believe. The use of the media and propaganda to discourage the enemy is a big part of 4GW. Through terror or even through false claims of abuse in order to make the enemy's public opinion doubt the capabilities of its leadership. That's certainly a very correct observation. And in fact what you say about 3GW defeating 4GW purely on the battlefield may be very true, but sadly 4GW does not limit the fight to the battlefield.

Perhaps this notion you make may be the actual guide to victory over 4GW enemies, by limiting their capabilities to spread terror, disinformation or propaganda a clean military victory could become a viable option.

And Merocaine, I can agree with that, I myself wouldn't accept such all-covering theories either. Although I don't believe the generational thinking provides a playbook at all. Some may see it as one and wrongly apply it because of that. I would think of the generational thinking more like a tool to uncover evolutions in warfare and the way several doctrines have interacted, as such presenting the actual creators of strategies to draw on previous knowledge about how these doctrines interacted in order to analyse a new situation, enabling them to find a more solid solution.