Looking carefully at that which is unseen.

Thinking about: 4G Warfare

The US will end up getting its collective imperial butt kicked out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Unlike other imperial territories, those two are remaining in an active rebellion – and the Arab Spring is happening in that neighborhood as well, just to add some spice to the occasion.

The biggest reason the empire cannot win wars is plain and simply American hubris. The typical American, whether in a leadership role or simply the guy (or gal) on the street, simply cannot comprehend that other people have other values. That’s why they’re “other people.” American “leaders” (more on that term in a later post) are particularly susceptible to the sin of hubris, imagining as they do – because of their exalted positions, which actually suck in a geologic sense – that because they were elected or appointed that they, QED, have all the right answers and that those answers must be inflicted on others, at gunpoint if necessary. Being certain you’re right, when that certainty only affects yourself, is no huge sin. Forcing that view on others, on pain of pain, is a problem.

Which brings us back to the Middle East. Are there people in Iraq and Afghanistan who want American troops there? You bet – most of them, like the corrupt government of Saigon, have personal stakes in hoovering huge amounts of wealth out of the country and in keeping their own personal fundaments intact and safe from any potential rebels or torch-and-pitchfork wielding mobs. The Mayor of Kabul would not last 30 days if American troops came home from Afghanistan tomorrow.

The key to America’s upcoming losses is another area of warfare that America has never understood, that type of warfare currently known as 4G Warfare. Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining it, in rough draft form, in this argicle. I’ve been following William Lind’s writings on the topic since they first appeared and have found nothing to quibble with.

America is locked into a 2G Warfare mentality. “He who bombs and kills the most wins,” is the guiding credo of 2G, and one only has to look at the budget imbalances between munition purchases when compared to language training to get some idea of America’s love affair with 2G. Why not? Learning a foreign language and culture can be difficult. Building and delivering a bomb is relatively easy. There’s no doubt that you can kill enough people to end any opposition to your rule – and the wind whistling through the empty eye sockets of the pyramids of skulls can be a soothing and pleasing sound to the conqueror.

As the imperial dotgov has grown abroad, it has grown at home as well. Can anyone imagine Thomas Jefferson or John Adams or Andrew Jackson appointing a TSA head? Now Abe Lincoln, on the other hand … but I digress. With that growth of empire and imperial mannerisms at home comes the imperial methodology of 2G Warfare, though now turned against the empire’s own citizens. Recent reports and articles have opined on the growing militarization of the police and the resultant propensity to treat more and more crimes as needing resolution through commando raids. It’s not an unreasonable nor fringe observation any more to note that law enforcement (cf. former description as “peace officers”) agencies are taking on more and more of the characteristics of an army of occupation, rather than local people keeping the peace. See, for example, further discussion here.

As a result and response, elements of 4G warfare are now appearing locally as well. If you can work your way through the gawdawful color combinations (don’t bloggers ever READ their own blogs when they pick their colors?) you can find an interesting sample here.

The US Army in Vietnam gave lip service to winning the hearts and minds of the locals, but were truly clueless as to how to actually go about doing so, and thus lost the war (while never losing a battle). Is that the future of America inside the borders as well?

5 responses to “Thinking about: 4G Warfare

  1. MamaLiberty June 15, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    [quote] The US Army in Vietnam gave lip service to winning the hearts and minds of the locals, but were truly clueless as to how to actually go about doing so, and thus lost the war (while never losing a battle). Is that the future of America inside the borders as well?[/quote]

    Unless the “oathkeepers” actually get a winning hand in the deal, many of us sincerely DO expect this to be part of the future, and we have no use for 2G methods. We also have no intention of being herded into cattle cars. Those empty skulls with the wind whistling through will not be all ours…

    • Hobbit@Law June 15, 2011 at 10:38 pm

      Good points, but it presumes that people will at some point take an active hand in expressing their displeasure. Thanks to the miracles of TV and public school, I’m not terribly convinced that that will ever happen. Boobus Americanus is generally all too willing to believe the State’s side of the story, rather than having to actually, you know, think for himself.

  2. MamaLiberty June 15, 2011 at 11:01 pm

    Have you visited Wyoming lately? [grin] We are few in number, but trust me… we’re not going to go gently into that dark night. Personally, I think a lot of people are in for a shock when the time comes.

    And no, most people will not suddenly become libertarians unfortunately. With their intellect and moral fiber destroyed, most will become desperate to find food and shelter and, having absolutely no idea how to cope, they will take the path of least resistance and kill each other in great numbers fighting over whatever they can find – as well as the agents of the government trying to maintain control. In the cities and metro areas, I think this is a given.

    Those who survive in less crowded areas will face some of these unfortunate people and certain aspects of the dying beast of tyranny, but I think they will manage in the end, one way or another.

    Utopia is not an option, remember. Terrible as the prospect is, I think that a great cleansing is the only hope for a free future.

    • Hobbit@Law June 17, 2011 at 11:01 pm

      True enough, but neither did the Confederates and you don’t see too many of them around today. The problem with the cleansing – and you may be right as the “only hope” – is that it can also go the other way. Remember the line from the Mel Gibson movie, “Why should I trade one tyrant, three thousand miles away, for three thousand tyrants, one mile away?” As El Neil points out, two people aren’t necessarily smarter, better, more ethical or moral than one person – but they frequently are stronger. I’m sad to find from experience in my day job that the only thing that keeps a lot of predators from preying is the threat of punishment, and once the threats they grew up with are removed (i.e. no police, no jail) they may be a worse problem than the State ever was.

      Which is not to justify the existence of the State, mind you, but given the way the State has allowed the predator population to breed up over the past fifty years any cleansing is going to be ugly. To say the least.

      • MamaLiberty June 18, 2011 at 11:06 am

        There are no guarantees in life. We just have to do the best we can. Yes indeed… the cleansing will be ugly beyond belief and we may not prevail, but that is no reason not to strive for it with everything we have.

        I’ve given this a great deal of thought, actually, and even wrote a book about it. I can only hope the outcome I envision will be the result… but I know I will not live to see it either way. Such is life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: