Fourth Generation Warfare, ...and other myths

Grant Jones has a good article up on "Fourth Generation Warfare," which, a commenter sums up, "[is] a classic case of empiricism; missing the forest for the trees."

(4GW, that is, not Grant's article)

Here is his conclusion, which I completely agree with:

I've read plenty on Fourth Generation Warfare (4GW); of all of its impressive-looking and insightful-sounding observations... of its citation of Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz. I've seen a few smart people, including Objectivists, namely Jack Wakeland of The Intellectual Activist, advocate the theories of 4GW.

I, for one, am not buying.

This "new" type of warfare is entirely the product of our nation's refusal to act selfishly and assertively to defend ourselves. If we fought, really fought this war with all of our military capacity used unapologetically, it would be over in a matter of months.

There is no revolutionary form of warfare present in our enemies. The radical difference in war today is that of ideas; namely our nation's abandonment of the idea that our way of life, that of individual rights and freedom (i.e. Laissez-Faire Capitalism), is morally correct and that we have a right to exist; a right defensible by any means necessary.

I fear that this is just one more of the Trackinski camp's rejection of the Objectivist theory of history; that ideas are fundamental. Because that is certainly what it looks like: a focus on the minor details of day-to-day battles while completely ignoring the fundamental fact that our army is fighting with both its arms tied behind its back, both in tactical Rules Of Engagement, and the strategic insanity that we won't attack the real enemy.

-Inspector

*Post title taken from this, which ironically also misses the forest for the trees.

It is amazing to me how much work and effort someone will put into being a dishonest coward.

Haha, I was waiting for your input on this one.

Nice.

Once again, your pithiness is not to be underestimated.

As Rochefoucauld once wrote;

Comme c'est le caractère des grands esprits de faire entendre en peu de paroles beaucoup de choses, les petits esprits au contraire ont le don de beaucoup parler, et de ne rien dire.

Trackinski et al are revealing themselves to be the later.

"All hat and no cattle" has been a description of Bush for some time now. It trickles down, I guess. And applies, as you say, to the apologizers as well.

I can't really tell if its what they say that trickles down to him, or that they just, like a kind of partisan reflex, just draft some rationalization for everything he does.

It's older than him, really. Dates to the 80's at least, maybe more. If I had to pull a guess out of my hat I'd say it's a big excuse for why we didn't defeat Vietnam, making that excuse anything but the real reason, which is the same basic reason we can't defeat the enemy today.