Soob

Certainly on the tactical level they contain semblance of sophistication that travails the simplicity of suicide bombers and IED's. But beyond the tactical how strategically sophisticated was this operation? Three immediate scenarios come to mind for the sake of discussion:

Vengeance (the Columbine:) As mentioned by commentator David Meyer in John Robb's latest post regarding Mumbai. For the sake of this discussion the Columbine tragedy entailed the most base reasoning for exacting violence. Revenge. The resulting social fallout was an obvious happenstance but the core goal for the perpetrators was a spectacular and well media covered act of vengeance. In the Mumbai context this would seem to suggest a domestic agenda reflective of India's sectarian tensions.

Local Systemic Collapse: As per John Robb's analysis, that the goal was to bring a functioning metropolis to a virtual stand still through the use of blatant, mass violence. Additionally in targeting mass transportation (Chatrapathi Sivaji Terminal,) "enemy" religious establishment (Jewish center) and tourism (hotels) the attack would have a lasting psychological impact even after all those involved were dead or captured.

International Tension or better yet Conflagration: An effort to roll back the 2003 Kashmir cease fire and 2004 nuclear testing treaty and unravel any semblance of peace between the two countries, ultimately resulting in another round of armed conflict. Nuclear sabre rattling (a resumption of testing, say) would be icing on the cake.

My personal impression? The jury's still out though I'm leaning toward all three together. What's lacking thus far is a concrete definition of who was responsible and how extensive a network they operated from within. Additionally even if the affiliation of those that carried out this carnage is affirmed we then have to consider the possible larger perspective of cross organizational participation. Without those variables it's difficult to pinpoint how broad a strategy was employed.

Wiggin's wonders aloud whether legitimacy is zero sum. That, if in order for one entity gain legitimacy, another must lose legitimacy. He links to John Robb's post here that highlights a Lind quote.

In the Great Depression of the 1930s, states’ economic failure brought governments and even systems of government, including democracy, into question. In both Europe and the United States, Communism and Fascism gained certain popularity because in the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, everyone had a job. But the state itself was not challenged, because there was no alternative to the state.

Now, there is. Intelligent Fourth Generation entities, ranging from some drug gangs through organizations such as Hezbollah, are competing directly with the state for people’s primary loyalty. If those Fourth Generation entities can provide basic services, including food, when the state can no longer do so, they will gain the legitimacy that state is losing. In Fourth Generation war, that is a bigger win than any potential military victory.

This concept of a 4th Generation entity makes sense when considering the parasitic, narco-feudalists affecting the likes of Mexico and Columbia. Keeping the host (the nation) in a state of continued decay is essential for maintaining their cocaine driven baronies.

However, from my perspective, Hezbollah and Hamas are hardly seeking the state of "perpetual 4GW" (or the Robbian Global Guerrilla) rather are endeavoring to usurp the existing political authority and replace it with their own construct. Think of it as a very gradual coup that occurs not from the top down (a la Pervez Musharaff, perhaps) but yanks the bricks from the foundation that supports an existing regime in a very slow and methodical fashion. Very much in line with Robb's "hollowed state" but the goal isn't anarchy but political change.

Certainly this strategy has worked very well for Hamas as they now maintain political control of the West Bank and Hezbollah as they now hold unprecedented and legitimate power (with some help from Israel) within the Lebanese parliament. Both entities achieved this through the above mentioned displacement of loyalty to the state to loyalty to the party through establishment of a grassroots social welfare system that provided where the authorities could or would not.

So the question is, when does a 4GW entity stop being a 4GW entity? Should we consider Hamas and Hezbollah along the same lines of FARC or any Mexican drug cartel? Is 4GW directly defined by a groups modus or it's status?

The flexibility and cellular structure of 4GW elements leaves little chance for lumbering bureaucracies to effectively stave off every destructive plot. While various western government agencies have done surprisingly well in sniffing out and putting down many nefarious plots one wonders how many remain unknown.

The August 2006 break up of a terrorist plot to blow up airliners with bombs containing the active ingredients of Tang (the breakfast drink of astronauts since 1965) and hydrogen peroxide (both readily available at any supermarket) illustrates both the devious talent and unpredictable quality of today's 4GW operators and suggests that eventually one of these plots will be carried out successfully.

Of course after each discovery officials instill reactive (over reactive in some cases) protocols, such as TSA's shoe searches, limiting various vessel sizes for shampoo's, etc. At first blush this seems sensible enough but at some point these increasingly invasive measures will reach a semblance of critical mass and lead to systemic decay. One imagines a day when 5 hours pre-boarding time is par for the course as passengers run a gauntlet of fine toothed combing. Or, as a result of multiple, small scale attacks (ied's perhaps) a municipal para-military roam the streets of our major cities. In most cases the reactive response means more strain on the systems applying it and the citizens burdened by it.

So what to do?

Initially I was skeptical about the concept of community resilience. This due, mainly, to a rather shallow and incomplete glance at the prospect, viewing it from both a self centered perspective and through the limited aspect of grass roots counter-terrorism.

I'd imagined knocking on my neighbors door and saying something like "We need a communal coalition to address our lack of resilience in the event of a terror attack." Which in the relatively inauspicious environment of what one could loosely term "urban" Vermont might gain me a cocked eyebrow and some bored, reluctant humoring. So, as of late, I've been reading of and reconsidering the prospects of the bottoms up approach to resilience on a communal basis. That being the bottom up approach to limiting reliance on big government systems in cases not just involving a terrorist attack, but across the spectrum from a collapse in infrastructure and natural disaster. Or, as Peter put it in discussing John Robb's concepts on the same subject:

A key measure, as Robb suggests, is to reduce dependence on complex and extensive systems, at both an individual and community level.

Read the entire post as he goes on to consider what might a resilient community entail. Ignore the bit of commentary in which some character going by "subadei" over analyzes and under thinks. Though in my own defense (and yes, I'm defending myself from...myself) the nuts and bolts of building such a communal organization (and Peter presents a nascent blue print) needs to be addressed in detail. A concept on paper is one thing, a concept realized is another.

Further sources discussing the concept of resilient communities:

John Robb, who I first read of the concept in his book, Brave New War and is set to publish his next on the very subject of resilient communities.

The above mentioned Peter of The Strategist, a series of posts on resilience.

The Illustrious Grand Wizard of Oz, Shane Deichmans, who also happens to command a business initiative addressing emergency management and consultation.

Zenpundit who has cataloged both Johns Robb's posts and his own on the subject here.

Coming Anarchy: Younghusband continues his coverage of Anon's effective "intifada" against Scientology.

Global Guerrillas: Publishes a comment from an alleged Anon member. The fact that John deleted the IP record lends one to wonder just how anonymous this faction is... At any rate, an enlightening look at the rather sophisticated nature of this collective.

Hidden Unities (a bit late in reading this post): Jury Nullification regarding the War On Drugs is being advocated by the creators of "The Wire" in a NYT Op Ed. Said nullification is wholly supported by this half of Soob.

Swedish Meatballs Confidential: For once I looked at the pictures and read the articles. In this case a "case is not at all closed" aspect of Pakistan, US funding, and the difficulties in pushing a religiously driven 3gw force to do an about face and fight a counter insurgency against the very ideals that many who serve have come to embrace.

Via Zenpundit; RealScoop: A conflation of voice stress analysis and video that apparently lends the viewer to observe an analytical range of "believability" as the subject speaks. If you haven't read Natures End then you won't appreciate my apprehension.

Good stuff.

Kenya, once a bastion of stability in a neighborhood of otherwise failed states, seems to have come undone in a fashion that lends one to imagine both Robert Kaplan's "The Coming Anarchy" and John Robbs "A Brave New War." In a space of scant weeks Kenya went from stable nation state to nation state shattered by what is essentially politically driven civil war. Now we see loyalties further condensed in the form of primitive tribal warfare. Replete with bows and arrows.

Making bows and arrows has become a communal task. Although women and girls do not fight, they assist in collecting materials for the weapons. Five bow-and-arrow construction groups of 10 members each are scattered around the town. Weapon-makers first cut the head off a 4-inch nail, which is then chiseled with a heavy hammer into a sharp edge. The nail is then coiled to fit onto a bamboo stick. A groove is cut into the bottom of the stick in order to add paraffin paper wings for the arrow to have better flight. Sometimes, the arrow is dipped into frog or snake poison before being released.

Amazing and sad how far and how fast a nation can collapse.

Very descriptive photo-journal from Time on the tribal warfare in Kenya.

In reading Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group's (hence forth know as CIIDG for the sake of brevity) usual excellence I came across this aside:

You, too, can play a role in countering propaganda through restrictive measures.

Which links to a blog by the Poe-ish title of Quoth the Raven which finds "jihadist" propaganda vids on youtube and invites it's readers to flag said vids as inappropriate. I suppose the reality here is that the newly acquired by Google youtube is ill prepared to enforce it's protocol of decency and so various "jihadist" snuff films escape attention. Given the massive growth of youtube, I'm unsurprised.

What our Poe friend offers is both a tracking and policing device simply through a public, very open source means. Not bureaucracy but a collective of individual vigilance, an online neighborhood watch so to speak.

I'm now beginning to "get" or redefine Robb's "resilient community." Not so much a geographical term that refers to neighborhoods but, perhaps, an ideological term that refers to the like minded. Quite the inference, but then we can wish can't we?

Hmm.

"The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, has called for those who sabotaged his country's high-speed TGV rail network to be punished with "extreme severity".

Mr Sarkozy asked the justice minister to carry out all necessary inquiries into what the state rail operator, SNCF, called a "concerted campaign".

Arsonists burnt tracks and signals, causing delays to services already hit by an eighth day of transport strikes.

Earlier, talks were held to try to end the dispute over economic reforms."

Quite likely, not. More likely this is less a "concerted campaign", as President Sarkozy opines, as it is an act of destructive spontaneity. But the hypothetical possibility remains: Labor driven systempunkt?

Via Coming Anarchy, Chirol's post regarding the spread of Jihadist's tactics from Iraq to Russia. The difference? The Russian murderers claimed not Jihad but Russian social nationalism under the flag of Nazism. This via RadioFreeEurope:

"Two men are seen kneeling on the ground in a forest, their arms and legs tied up. A large flag with a Nazi swastika stands in the background.
"We've been arrested by the Russian National Socialists," one of the two men says.
A third man walks up to the captives and beheads one of them with a knife. The second captive is shot in the head and falls forward into a freshly dug grave.
Two masked men then raise their arms in a Nazi salute.
Killings Appear Real
This the content of a two-minute video posted on the Internet by a little-known Russian organization calling itself National Socialism/White Power.
The video identifies the two captives as "colonists from Tajikistan and Daghestan."
It appeared on the Internet on August 12 but has since been pulled from most websites."

My comment on CA:

"This ranks right around 9.5 on the not good scale. Ones wonders when the first IED detonates in an American city as gangs begin adopting tactics in similar fashion. This, I think, is the essence of John’s GG theory. Not a set group hellbent on accomplishing the specific goal of “X” but a more of a viral set of tactics as various subgroups realize the potential for success in engaging in small scale attacks that wreak large scale effects both economically and societally on their larger enemy. The real effect is disruption the ideological effect is empowerment (both in the eyes of the attackers and the victims.)"

My previous reflection on John's GG's:

"the GG taxonomy entails an effect rather than a goal. The GG theory could and does entail the narco-terrorism south of the US border, economic resistance to corporate Shell in Nigeria and the future IED attacks in south central Los Angeles in the name of tribal (gang) dominance."

Whether one agrees or disagrees with Robb's study the spread of these tactics beyond the theater of war and into the aspect of social dissatisfaction is a worrying development. We've spent countless dollars on combating, preparing for and recovering from the next extraneous attack. Have we given enough prescience to those that grow among us?

Friend D of Swapping Cows for Beans discusses, explores and criticizes 4GW framework.

"The scientific/biological analogy and the topic of Popper/Historicism brings up the point of war as an art or science. If specific definitions of words like generation, or species, are to be introduced to describe phenomenon, then I would think that there would be some methodological rigour in how you gather that information. Dialectics doesn't cut it for me. It would have to be along the lines of the scientific method."

Catholicgauze "gets" Hezbollah beyond popular convention.

"They will not try to take over the country by force, too messy. Instead they will use the political process to keep Hezbollah armed and in charge of their microstate while they try to bring Lebanon itself in line with Hezbollah's goals."

Via Sklok Vaidya this blog, Self-Sustaining Community, that seeks to carry John Robbs recommendations regarding a decentralized approach to the "Long War."

"We've all read the BNW and have some ideas about how we can affect security in our own back yards. Let's start sharing those ideas in this blog."

The Strategist summarizes a study released by the British army regarding the near 40 year long conflict with Northern Ireland.

"There is no magic formula that guarantees success. Organizations, methods and systems developed in one conflict can be exported to other theatres, but must be adapted to local conditions."

Good stuff

I'm watching with interest a blogospheric exchange regarding John Robbs recent book, Brave New War. The catalyst seems to be MountainRunners skeptical review of Johns book and Amendment Nine's Phocion's taking exception to MR's want for a framework of motivation regarding the global guerrilla theory. MR's position isn't new as Dan of tdaxp plied a similar argument here. The consequential commentary includes not only John Robb but his friendly "rival" Dr. Thomas Barnett.

From what I've read the pro-Robbian Procion and the anti Robbian (an unfair label for both, but effective for a concise reflection) Dan, MountainRunner and even Curtis Weeks seem to be arguing past each other.

What I took from Robb's book was; A theory to explain the increasingly fragmented effect that any resistance entails and how an individual or small "cell" can exact a painful toll upon the most powerful collective. While the opponents demand a cause the proponent tosses aside goal as unimportant, or a Freudian (and this was a bit puzzling) weakness.

Both seem to ignore the fact that the GG taxonomy entails an effect rather than a goal. The GG theory could and does entail the narco-terrorism south of the US border, economic resistance to corporate Shell in Nigeria and the future IED attacks in south central Los Angeles in the name of tribal (gang) dominance.

In effect, the GG intellectual initiative concentrates on a strategy rather than a cogent or tangible element and so lacks the definition that both parties seem to disagree about.

Update: I think Shloky captures the meat and potatoes of what I'm trying to put forth:

"Since Brave New War is a framework, it does not need to fill out the global details. The complexity is a layer below the emergent datapoints. As a result, as previously stated, it probably would not have been able to do so in a real or satisfying way."

"That said, you can (and should) zoom in with the framework that Brave New War offers. The details will be filled out by those of us in the slipstream. That is exactly what I am hard at work doing in India."

(Emboldened text is mine)

Best of luck and be safe to Schlok in his Indian adventure.

In essence a relay of what I've read to what you should read via this marvelous contraption we call the Internet (Thanks Al!!) What follows are links and snippets of my own commentary.

1- Future Jacked on nuclear power:
"The 9/11 correlations are tiresome and the idea that we turn our backs of the best energy scenario because "somebody might smash a plane into it" is a bit like outlawing the automobile "cause those gasoline tanks could blow at any time!" Senseless and alarmist."

2- Coming Anarchy on the (bleak) future of energy consumption:
"Big Oils most terrifying bogeyman is federal regulation. Given the direction US politics have swayed (and will likely further sway) and the increasing burden on Americans wallets in the form of $3.00 per gallon gasoline prices such regulation seems more feasible by the day. In the eyes of Big Oil this is the equivalent of “the end is nigh.”

3- Thomas P. M. Barnett: on John Robb's Brave New War and how one commentator envisioned Robb as a socialist masked by the "false" visage of the "New Conservative": "Robb encourages a decentralized approach that seems quite contrary to socialism a more along the lines of libertarian ideology."

4- Dan of tdaxp takes the ultimate plunge: "Wow. Congratulations Dan and Fei!"

5- NeoNeoCon looks at Palestine: "“The world” seems happily blind and willfully resolved to simply tossing cash (as they’ve always done) at the Palestinians. Because, as everyone knows, money solves any and every problem… Except it doesn’t, especially in this case. Money irons out wrinkles, it doesn’t stitch the tear or patch the knee."

Allow me to quote myself:

Whether you buy into the whole package or, as the author invites, take a dish or two from the "buffet" John Robb presents yet another cogent and imperative plea to the US political and military establishment: Think outside the strategic confines of the cold war.

I wrote that in my "review" of John Robb's "Brave New War." No doubt the need for a change of strategy regarding the political and military establishments is needed post haste. But what of the mainstream media? As Mark writes at Zenpundit the mainstream media is catching on to the ideas bounced around in both the literary and online world. Further evidence can be found here where David Brooks reflects on John Robb's BNW. Good news no doubt.

But what of the "Average Joe?"

In establishing the position "War Czar" the Bush administration has broken rank with the conventional post WWII ideology of "defense." In effect President Bush has effectively brought back the ideology of the Secretary of War in which the massive martial power of the US is, in a most Clauswitzian fashion, an paramount instrument of foreign policy. Should the US not entertain an isolationist approach beyond G. W. Bush it will likely entertain a Barnettesian approach of flattening offending regimes and rebuilding. This strategy will require something of a reverse negative of traditional warfare in that the US forces are so capable that the initial offensive will require mere weeks. The residual effort will require a long term commitment which entails years as rebuilding takes place. That's the long story short. My concern is:

How can a mentally hyperactive populace such as America be convinced to support a long term rebuilding effort beyond their borders? Is the American citizen prepared for the prospect of the long term approach of both counter-insurgency and societal rebuilding? Can the average American accept a few weeks of Shock and Awe and a few years (perhaps a decade) of both counter insurgent efforts and rebuilding efforts?

The effects of the Iraq war suggest no. The American public is very comfortable with the short term kinetic approach but not at all willing to accept the long term prospect of both COIN and rebuilding. If America is to forge beyond the Cold War ideological confines an effort must be made to transform the conventional "now, now" approach that most American's entertain to a much more patient and long range thought process.

Thoughts on Brave New War: Adam at Simulated Laughter

Brave New War part I, part II: Dan at tdxp

Brave New War: Mark at ZenPundit

A Brave New Worldview: Eddie at Hidden Unities

In Guerrillas We Trust: Thomas Barnett

Brave New Review: Michael at Haft of the Spear

Review: Brave New World: Shloky at, er, Shloky

What if Warfare was Reinvented and Nobody Bothered...: Flagg at FutureJacked (I'll be looking at that blog a bit closer soon...)

A Real World Approach to Fighting Terrorists: Ed Cone at News-Record.com

Still waiting for commentary from the Strategist and a definitive review from Coming Anarchy.

Update:

But wait, there's more!

Review of a Brave New War: William S. Lind

Brave New War: The Next Stage of Terrorism and the End of Globalization: Chet Richards

When I slid this book from the shelf of my local bookseller the first impression it virtually screamed was "I am brief." Contrary to John Robb's extensive study of his Global Guerrilla theory online his published account entails a mere 188 pages. Such brevity induced uncertainty as I made my way to the checkout while thumbing to James Fallow's foreword. I worried that what I was buying might be the equivalent of a military guidebook for helicopter rotor maintenance.

Not even slightly. One thing BNW isn't is a long winded, jargon packed manifesto. Quite the contrary, whether one has sound command of Boyd, Lind, and Hammes or has simply bought this book based on it's brooding yet enticing cover it captures and explains in a most satisfying and easy fashion. If Robb's online initiative is a vast labyrinth of intrigue and frustrating complexity his book is a well mapped tour through his vision that is at once bleak and hopeful.

While I still remain unconvinced of the fragility of the cultural jingoism that encompasses the western or "first world" nation state and am unable to envision the devolution to what is, effectively, a modernists vision of pre-Westphalian earth I've come to appreciate his well founded assertions of the dark underside to globalization. The evolution of the currently recognized jihadist's vision of 4GW to Robb's transcending vision of global guerrilla's and the worrying open sourced warfare combined with the potential nightmare of the "brittle" and over centralized national security is enough to eclipse such prejudice. Whether you believe the nation state is in decline or not, Robb presents a very convincing vision of autonomous entities driven by anything from religious ideology, economic dissatisfaction or simple greed and their ability to exact devastating strikes on macro-economies for micro-economic costs.

John presents his theory (in some ways reality) in a concise, poignant and convincing fashion that will give even the most ardent skeptic (cough, cough, Dan tdaxp, cough) pause. Whether you buy into the whole package or, as the author invites, take a dish or two from the "buffet" John Robb presents yet another cogent and imperative plea to the US political and military establishment: Think outside the strategic confines of the cold war.

Good stuff.

Closing request: John Robb mentions an online debate with Thomas Barnett. If anyone has a link to that I'd love to see it.

I’m about a third of the way through Dr. Barnett’s latest book (Blueprint for Action.) Prior to slapping down $16 and change my sole source of Barnettesian (yes I’ve invented a word) theory was his web log. When I hefted the 400+ pages from the bookshelf at my local Borders (I don’t do Amazon. I like to feel, open and explore a book before dividing myself from hard earned cash. I also value the environment a building packed full of letters and words provides over the cold intangible computer screen) there was a moment of hesitation.

No the hesitation didn’t entail standing there in the middle of a bustling bookstore with Blueprint in my right hand and a portrait of Andrew Jackson in my left weighing the value of one versus the other. What it entailed was the knowledge that I’m relatively new to thinking beyond my own environment. Where as Dr. Barnett wields his knowledge with practiced ease I’m still trying to understand mines balance, direction and application.

In essence, if my mind is a vast plantation then the acreage I’ve fenced off to grow these thoughts, opinions and understandings is a fertile one with various spots of healthy crops reaching for the sun but also more blank plots of hungry soil awaiting sow.

By reading something as encompassing as the Blueprint I risk focusing (and limiting) my understanding in a one dimensional sense. In effect, I sow the entire field with one seed. And, consequently, reap one crop. I limit my options. I make the same mistake the hard political partisans in this country make. Hold on to one ideal for dear life and scoff at anything that even approaches disagreement.

This isn’t to suggest that I see TPMB’s ideas as erroneous or limiting. Quite the contrary, so far. It’s also important to note that the various blogs I read have a similar residual effect on my views (tdaxp, CA, Zenpundit, GG , AG , MP and every other blog listed in the “wisdom” margin.) The difference, of course, is that the blogs present ideals in a fragmented sense where as a collective (as Blueprint or Coming Anarchy or the (I presume) soon to be Brave New War for example) entail a focused and powerful intellectual affect.

And, so it is, I tiptoe into the tepid intellectual currents of Barnett. And the reading is glacial. This is not a consequence of the narrative or the ideas presented in the book. The good doctors ability to present the complex is very effectively whittled down to that of an everyman, understandable yarn. At times I have to remind myself I'm reading theory and not fiction. His concrete certainty should be a dry, condescending narrative and yet maintains the cadence and ease of popular fiction.

At this point many will think "Ah, but Soob, you're pandering to Barnett." A fair but completely baseless thought. If I thought Barnett's attempt was shit I'd espouse as much, without a thought to my qualifications regarding the heady material he puts forth. That aside:

The glacial effect is a self inflicted reaction. Every so many pages I find myself looking up, gazing off into nothingness and spinning about in my head something I’ve read. For example I spent 15 minutes ping ponging the inclusion of Brazil as a Core state. I’m still in the “why?” stage. Argentina? ok, I guess. Chile? Sure. Brazil? Erm…

His “fuck it then” (my words) take on Iran is incredibly refreshing (especially given the fact that it’s at least 2 years old) and, sadly, the least likely aim of the current administration whose want is, likely (in line with Robbian thought [See what I mean about influence?]) to hammer out a lasting “legacy” by obstructing Iran’s nuke grab rather than shifting our policy to one that essentially accepts nukes and consequently modifies Irans political outlook (anti-Israeli) to one of a more globally productive fashion. There aren’t too many political commentators that realize the divide between Sunni Arab apocalypticism and Shia Persian jingoism.

As I wade through Blueprint I’ll, no doubt, plop down further ideas here.

Via John Robb this:

A Yale law school debate. Oddly enough I put this question forth here and on tdaxp.

My hypothetical focus was that of ethnic fracture which is captured in a much more cogent fashion by Jacqueline Newmyer in her essay.

Both Dan and Eddie held the similar view of Wei Jingsheng in that economic discrepancies hold a more cogent possibility of national fracture or, as the Yale question posits, civil war.

An fascinating line of thought.

A discussion fueled by Dan’s post regarding John Robb's Global Guerilla theory has spawned one hell of a debate. I’ve watched , instigated and partaken in many debates online, mostly in forums and I’ve yet to see an intellectual conflict of such quality. And no, this isn’t pandering but simply an honest statement. With ry and phil jones formidably entrenched in their defense of Robb's theory ; TDL, Isaac, purpleslog and Lex providing a moderate position shifting here and there; Dan and Curtis are on full offensive, with sidling bits from a517dogg, Steve French and yours truly. Even Thomas Barnett tossed his lot in, though the climax was, of course, Robb's own presence in his own defense. Amazing.

My hope is that the debate continues, each side pouring more information into the virtual bonfire of knowledge they’ve created.

Within the context of the excellent debate I presented my initial issues with the GG theory.

“How does the endgame result (and goal) of GG's dissolution of the state jive with the real aspect of human social evolution? Haven't human beings conglomerated to form increasingly large social structures throughout history?

Additionally as nation states become more intwined economically (and strategically) isn't the antithesis of the GG theory more likely in the form of hegemony?

I think it's an intriguing theory and certain aspects bear a good deal of cogency (global black market allowing GG's financial sovereignty from states, for instance) but it seems counterintuitive to the direction human kind has been and continues to head for.
Even the most horrific human misadventure (Nazism) had at it's base the element of a social collective rather than essential anarchy.
Why a sudden 180 degree twist to effective social devolution? I think the GG theory needs a remarkable event or "spark" (like German nationalism on the heels of a humiliating defeat, economic ruin, etc.) to be more understandable.”

First off, I believe the short term will bring a fracture of the cold war unity we’ve enjoyed for the past 60+ years. As failures mount in Iraq we’ll see a further division in strategic and philosophical unity amongst the US and it’s allies. Should the NATO offensive breakdown in Afghanistan the NATO principles and effectiveness will be delivered a rather heavy blow producing an even more fractious environment.
Other less obvious events will further the global divisions: Sudan, Somalia, Palestine, Israel, Iran the list is long and the state positions vary.

These fractures ignore what is, perhaps, the most enduring tie that binds international relations today. Money!

We have reached a point in history which presents an incredible impossibility: Nation based war amongst the Core (or "semi" core [Israel for example]) states. Match any given Core state against each other in a conventional war and the first effect is always the same. Near immediate national bankruptcy and global economic stress or collapse. In effect, we’ve reached a point where war between Core states is simply too expensive and too destructive to national economies to occur. Amazingly, to some extent, the uberliberal World Peace vision of the late ‘60’s has enjoyed a huge step toward realization. Even more amazing is that the same political elements that honored such a scenario are now the leading opponents to the principles that are effectively delivering their dream. But that’s a subject for a later time.

The strategic and philosophical divisions we see now will reverse themselves much in the same fashion of the 80’s craze that assured us the Japanese would own America by the 20th century did. As time passes, Iraq realizes finality, Afghanistan succeeds or fails, the Nork dictatorship implodes (democratic unity ensues,) Iran modernizes, etc. the simple unity born of currency will not only hold the Core together but will add to it. Shared strategies and principles will be either dusted off and slapped down on the table or simply realized through the haze of war much in the same fashion of post WWII alliances only on a global scale and a much more complex fashion.

Which leads us to the principle of Hegemony… And 5GW. That conventional conflict is impossible does not deliver us into a world free of international or hegemonic tugs of war and I’d put the only true (IMO) chronologically cogent form of the GW theory at the forefront. 5GW.

Contrary to TDL’s reaction, my post on tdaxp wasn’t one that envisioned a global hegemony (albeit I‘m guilty of not defining my vision of Hegemony,) rather entertained the idea of various international confederacies, each essentially acting as it’s own hegemony. In short; principles, economic relations and strategies will realize national partnerships beyond that of the black and white alliances of the cold war.

That’s enough for now. More to follow.

I have a rather hard time compartmentalizing war in the fashion of some sort of evolutionary scale. From a purely logical standpoint I suppose it makes a great deal of sense. Overall, throughout history warfare has advanced along the lines that the GW assertion presents in a very generalized fashion.

I have to wonder about the cogency of purely structuring something so primeval as warfare, or the ability of human beings to adapt as advantage turns to disadvantage or vise versa. Can the human strategic ability be Darwinized in the same fashion as that of genetic advantage? Is the difference between Hannibal and Patten inclusive of combat evolution? This theory seems to work fine as long as one generalizes warfare throughout the ages and ignores or marginalizes the human aspect of ingenuity.

For instance, if 3GW is both an evolution in combat and entails the previously "unknown" aspect of mass maneuver in what category would the Mongol army fall? Pre-modern? I don't buy it. The Mongol armies under Genghis Khan found success first and foremost through mobility and disorientation. His armies were faster, more agile, could be in very unexpected positions in a very short period of time and utilized strategic position, hit and run attack, siege machines and captured populace in a very "shock and awe" manner. His command structure entailed a decimal system (units of 10) that concentrated his army in a very fluid and conventionally bizarre (disorienting) formation of concentric circles that could collapse into smaller units or conglomerate in a much more efficient fashion than that of his enemies. Pre-modern?

What of 4GW? Here's an interesting strategy employed by GK: Pillaging the surrounding villages of a sieged city and subsequent purposeful herding of the populace into said city. What's the effect? Systemic collapse. The cities resources are over run by the influx of refugees, popular support wanes, starvation is exaserbated and in some cases insurrection, often aggravated by Mongol induced propaganda, occurs.

Further (and this is a tactic popularly employed by the Romans as well) the promise of leniency through surrender and the action of overt slaughter in light of resistance. The effect, in both cases, often led to the breaking of the enemies (either present or subsequent) will to fight as opposed to exacting an offensive that took away the enemies ability to fight. We're seeing much the same tactic being employed in Iraq as insurgent factions rule in much the same fashion.

Certainly the above examples in light of the seemingly rigid definitions of generational warfare aren't exact. But they (and many other examples in historic warfare) are enough to disparage my own want to strictly identify warfare as a phenomena that has, step by step, evolved to what it is today.

It isn't that I dismiss the ideals of the generations of warfare. The idea of dividing strategies into such definitive elements is, no doubt, an incredibly valuable framework for developing current and building future models of command and control during conflict.

I'd rather entertain the ideas of GW in an overlapping manner as essences of each can be found throughout history.

And that's my take.

From a linked article on John Robbs blog regarding Pat Langs take on "Boogey Men:"

Iran and the international jihadi movement are existential threats to Israel. They are not existential threats to the the USA. Fight over that one. Just think about what it would take to kill the USA. It would take a lot, a hell of a lot. Think about potential jihadi or Iranian capabilities. Think about ranges, throw weights. Think about "the unthinkable." Undertand that the death of a city will not kill the United States. We are Israel's ally. We are prepared to go to war for Israel. I do not question that as policy, but if we go to war with Iran at root it will be because of the Israelis reasonable fear them as an existential threat.

From a post I put forth last week:

The immediate concern is not Iranian warheads or terrorist suitcase bombs. These concerns make for very effective hypothetical debate, frenetic punditry and might even translate into some of the more spectacular cable news segway graphics but they are not even remotely paramount to the current Persian nuke crisis.

Along with the all too recent psychological "defeat" at the hands of Hezbollah and in consideration of the very real likelihood of a Hamas coup in the Palestinian territory the addition of a possible Iranian nuclear threat might well serve a flashpoint in which the Israelis react (much in the same fashion of this past summer) in a rash, kneejerk measure: Military intervention in Iran.

Certainly we differ in opinion (especially in light of what leads up to the above quote but that's a seperate issue) in that Mr. Lang addresses a US incursion against Iran at the behest of Israel where as I envision an Israeli preemptive measure despite American attempts to mitigate. That we're both thinking outside the popular "Irans a direct national threat" box and indicating Israel as the true root (albeit from decidedly different directions) of concern is satisfying.

And yes, I'm tooting my own horn. And no I don't feel in the least bit bad for it :-P