Changing Faces of War; The 4th Generation

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by 45Auto, Mar 16, 2011.

  1. 45Auto

    45Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,269
    Anyone who would like to develope an understanding of the type of "war" we are in might find William Lind's work of interest.


    4th Generation:
    In the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Generations of War, Governments enjoy a near monopoly on war. And Government military organizations are trained and equipped to fight other Govt. military organizations. But their training and tactics are often useless or counterproductive when directed against a clever(non-state) 4th Generation opponent.

    Fourth Generation war is the greatest change because it marks the end of the state’s monopoly on war. Now, many different entities are fighting wars. They use many different means, including "terrorism" to erode the legitimacy of a Govt and divert primary loyalty to themselves.. Differences between cultures, not just states, become paramount, and other cultures will not fight the way we fight. All over the world, state militaries are fighting non-state opponents, and almost always, the state is losing. State militaries were designed to fight other state militaries like themselves, and against non-state enemies most of their equipment, tactics and training are useless or counterproductive.

    This is not to say that I agree with all of William Lind's views, but his 4th Generation of War theory is rational and well reasoned. Lind and others have been developing tactics for fighting 4th Gen. wars, but politics has been a big problem.


    This is a link to Lind's archives. I hope you find his views of interest:


    http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind-arch.html
  2. Insulation Tim

    Insulation Tim Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2008
    Messages:
    2,563
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ya think? Is the military-industrial complex so entrenched. I believe that it was General/President Eisenhower that warned us of this. Apparently it still falls on deaf ears.
  3. jbmid1

    jbmid1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,315
    That's why we were dropping 2,000 lb guided bombs from billion dollar aircraft to destroy mud huts hiding individuals with AK-47's in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
  4. Zhurh

    Zhurh Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    2,118
    Location:
    Upper Yukon, Alaska
    I don't know? My nephew sent me picts yesterday from Afghanistan. He's in AF emerg rescue unit, (pararescue, rapels out of blackhawk to pick up wounded). Luvs the blackhawks. M4 between his legs danglin out in the wind. I mean his Ar has an acog & lazerlyte and he has a headset; but other than advances in technology don't look much different to me.

    All that 2nd & 4th generation stuff isn't what our people see; only idiots that see that junk is the politicals, ya know what I mean, no joke. Nephew said after several months of being real slow, now it's warming up and they are super busy; non stop flying; everyday. He can't wait to get back to Alaska and shoot some caribou, I just sent him 8 lbs of home made caribou dry meat so it stays fresh in his mind, ha.
  5. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,151
    I would say that terrorism is a real threat, just like communism was. But this "war industry" almost has too much power. For all the money they have, they can buy elections, get their people into office and get their war and by extension - keep themselves in business. What they call the "military-industrial complex."

    Now I'm not one of those people who think that they killed Kennedy. I think he got killed over his refusal to invade Cuba.

    But the real debate is whether or not we need a privatized war industry. In one way it's good because it gives us a quick response if we are attacked. On the other hand, it leaves room for them to gain too much influence over politics.

    I say let the people of the United States be the national military. That's what the militia in the Second Amendment was all about IMO. The people were supposed to have power over their government and defend their home against foreign invasion.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2011
  6. 45Auto

    45Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,269
    I highly recommend reading Lind's observations. Read a few at a time, as time permits. But a quick skim is not enough. Lind's views of what has been happening to our country right now are eye opening.

    BTW, hogar129, Spot-on observation about the war industry. Look at our so-called liberal democrats. They took control in Washington and nothing changed for the war industry. I'm also troubled by the outsourcing of American military service to private corporations. If America goes to war, WE go to war, not mercs from other nations paid by a corporation.
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2011
  7. hogger129

    hogger129 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Messages:
    4,151
    Well and then what? When corporations are controlling the war industry, won't they essentially create a "Reichstag Fire" to get a war and some money?
  8. 45Auto

    45Auto Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,269
    hogger129,

    It's not "when corporations are controlling the war industry" they are controlling the war industry. A "Reichstag Fire" moment is always possible but given their hold on Washington I don't think they need to manufacture an incident to make money.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum dem senator slighty changing tune Mar 29, 2013
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum ATF banning guns by changing definitions Apr 18, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum The Changing Scene Mar 23, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Changing the verbage Mar 19, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Faces & Fingerprint Scans Rejected in Texas.... May 29, 2003

Share This Page