The Crisis of Fourth-Generation War (4GW)
In William Lind’s July 11, 2007 entry “Not Fourth Generation War” [ http://www.defense-and-society.org/lind/lind_7_12_07.htm ] on his Defense and National Interest website, Lind claims that Western culture and therefore society faces a grave threat by not addressing two things: that U.S. and the military itself are 1) not grasping the realities of what in military theory is known as Fourth Generation Warefare (4GW) and 2) not grasping the danger in which, “cultural Marxism” [and those who follow and advocate the Frankfurt School] represent in the United States and Western society. Advocating that Western society and culture must be defended in order to save it, Lind, turns to fascist and racist solutions.
“In larger part, they [national governments, Western states] ignore the reality of 4GW because it contradicts their ideology, commonly known as “multi-culturalism” but actually the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt School. That ideology says that all the world’s cultures are wonderful, happy, peaceful cultures except Western culture, which is oppressive and evil and must be destroyed. In fact, Western culture is one of only two cultures in human history that has succeeded over millennia (the other is Chinese). 4GW theory warns that we now face a world of cultures in conflict, that we must defend Western culture and that many, perhaps most, other cultures are threats, especially when they flood Western countries with immigrants. Cultural Marxism welcomes immigrants who will not acculturate precisely because they are threats to Western culture.” (William S. Lind, Not Fourth Generation War)
What Lind is describing here is bourgeois liberalism and neo-liberalism and the problem with anything bourgeiois, that is the ruling ideology of the ruling class, is that the issue of culture and people can not be seen nor acknoweldged as equal, in the context of a modern definition of what a right means, on the basis of one’s being. All nations, peoples and languages are equal. How best a society guarantees the right to defend the right of equality should be the question put forth under examination, for it is vital matter of state. It is precisely for this reason that the state, including 4GW theorists themselves for the most part, also reject this ideology. Bourgeois liberalism, can not recognize the equality of nations and peoples, nor can it defend this principle. Rather, bourgeois liberalism tries to conceal their contempt for the equality of nations and people through the keyword “toleration”, but never through upholding and defending rights.
Lind also asserts that because Western culture has existed and succeeded over millenia, it has exclusive monopoly on what a culture is and should be. There is no examination nor effort to understand how cultures come into being in history and society. In the article, the case is made that immigrants should assimilate to the dominant culture, and because they maintain their own culture it poses a serious threat to Western culture. The demand that they submit and assimilate crosses another principle - that of peoples right to concience. The main issue here is that of American identity, an identity which is forged from not “western culture”, but from the development of society and arrangements of that society. Unable to recognize these developments and to adapt to them in context of defending and upholding principles, the thinking of fascism is to stop this development by attacking people, which in the end, will utterly fail. What poses a threat to sovereignty of the U.S. are not immigrants, nor is it other cultures. What has compromised the sovereignty of the U.S. is monopoly capital, in other words, imperialism, the state in the service of monopoly capitalism. It is time for the new wine to be poured into new bottles, that is to say, another U.S. must be created to uphold and defend the people and guarantee their well-being. In the context of “western states”, or rather the advanced capitalist countries in the world, the same analogy applies and that this task of creating the new nation [the new bottles] is the task of the consciously organized proletariat and people.
The November 2005 article from The Marxist-Leninist is very insightful on the nature of the ruling ideology of many a western state:
“…Today, the ruling ideology takes the form of neo-liberalism, which is fascist ideology. The ruling ideology serves the striving of the most powerful monopolies to dominate all economic, social, cultural and political affairs. Fascist ideology is anti-worker, anti-communist, racist and anti-social. It has replaced scientific argument with sophism and is reintroducing all the discredited notions and concepts of medievalism and clerical obscurantism including even official religious explanations of the origin of human beings and evolution of species.
All of this is aimed at justifying a return to medieval relations of indentured labour, barones regis (barons of the king), fealty and patronage. Collective action to affirm rights are outlawed while forms of banishment and civil death are enacted and made law. All relations are to be between individuals and their master, priest, lord or official who holds the power of dispensing punishment, selling forgiveness (corruption) or conferring positions of power (patronage appointments). In economic and political affairs, it is the concentration of power in fewer and fewer hands where the anointed ones decide and the people must obey with severe measures taken to smash all previous arrangements.
The more a nation and people break free from the ruling ideology and worldview, the more employees denounce the backward notion that the human factor represents a labour cost; the more the workers put themselves at the centre of the economy and politics and at the centre of their nation-building project activating the human factor/social consciousness and encouraging all the people to stand with them, the more the people and nations will prosper and thrive economically, socially and politically. The more the people participate in the full breadth of social life especially political affairs at their workplaces, neighbourhoods, educational centres and seniors homes, the more they participate in taking decisions and carrying them out in the interest of the public good; the more they participate in nation-building, the more they open the door to progress and prepare conditions to move their nations and social economies to the next level of national and social development…” ( http://cpcml.ca/Tmld2005/D35192.htm )
On Fourth-Generation Warfare
The theory of Fourth Generation Warfare is interesting, but not at all surprising when we look at the developments of societies since time immemorial and how each generation of warefare also reflected the deep going changes in society itself, economically, politically, and socially.
Echevarria gives a succinct summary of what 4GW theory entails in his article “Fourth-Generation War and Other Myths”:
“In brief, the theory holds that warfare has evolved through four generations: 1) the use of massed manpower, 2) firepower, 3) maneuver, and now 4) an evolved form of insurgency that employs all available networks - political, economic, social, military - to convince an oppenent’s decisionmakers that their strategic goals are either unacheivable or too costly.” ( Antulio J. Echevarria II, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub632.pdf )
Along with this, there is currently discussion among the 4GW theorists that another generation of war is emerging. To read more about it, here is Col. T. X. Hamme’s article “Fourth Generation Warefare Evolves, Fifth Emerges” [ http://www.defense-and-society.org/fcs/pdf/hammes_5gw.pdf ] An interesting article, one in which I would like to address fully at some point.
Having read various materials on the Fourth-Generation Warfare, most of which are supplied by William S. Lind, I’ve concluded that even in the scope of seeing the problem of waging a struggle [militarily] with those who take up 4GW, what can not be recognized in any of these analysis reports is the principle of the right of nations and people to resistance. For instance, when people resist against U.S imperialism and monopoly capitalism, the ruling class, it’s lackeys and such, have no real way of addressing resistance as a right, nor are they in any position to defend and uphold this principle. Therefore when nations and people resist, this right can not be addressed proper. This right is not addressed by the ruling class, nor is it addressed by the circles of military theorists, such as those who are very cleverly analyzing a phenomenon they have only been able to classify as Fourth Generation Warfare. The main aim however besides this on-going search for a definition of Fourth Generation Warfare is how to defeat the “enemies” who employ it. That is to say, the aim of finding a way to defeat 4GW and the “adversaries” of the so-called “west”, is to refuse and deny the right to resistance of those who take it up.
Lind argues that the state, in the face of a crisis of legitimacy, is unable to come to terms with the facts of 4GW, and the failure to do so, is costing the US in terms of dollars and bodies in its ventures abroad etc. The US military is not on a 4GW-footing, nor is it in a position to understand the strategy and tactics of 4GW, and if it was, and equipped itself to adapt to this environment and situation then western states will be on a much better track in defeating the “enemy.”
Yet the theorists and intelligentsia, including both the bourgeioisie and military, are unable to come to terms with the facts of resistance as excercised by nations and peoples to defend their right to sovereignty, as an excercise of sovereignty itself. One of the major weaknesses of these various trends of military and bourgeois thought is that it is incapable of calling things as they are. As in the cases of the Palestinian and Lebanese people, what is genuinely known as the resistance of a people against occupation and state-sponsored terrorism is called, in one fell stroke, without any discussion nor examination, “terrorist”. Resistance [or rather all that resists or moves is terrorism] is the problem, according to the 4GW theorists, because of the variance of forms it takes that is alien to the tactics and methods of conventional warefare by those who excercise it.
September 11, 2001 was no act of resistance as an excercise of a people. It was an act of terrorism no doubt. Even in such a situtation as this, mechanism and channels have been provided to persue individual criminals and terrorists who commit crimes such as these. The failure of the U.S. and the ruling class to excercise this right, and instead opted to goto war to sort the matter out against entire nations and peoples is the problem and creates an atmosphere in which individuals and groups, isolated from the mass number of people, to commit more crimes of terrorism unleashed against other people and states, especially the “western states”.
Again, the problem of the military, is not the resistance nor how a people take up that resistance, but the state in which the military is the physical arm. Not just any state, but an imperialist state, that is to say, a state in the name of defending a country and nation yet engaged in empire-building. It is the U.S. state that has failed militarily in Iraq, in Afghanistan, wherever they go, precisely because the principle of the right of nations to self-determination is not upheld nor is it defended. Just as the U.S. state has failed abroad, it has failed internally, especially in the case of Hurricane Katrina and the sealed fate of the people of New Orleans under the dictate of monopoly capital rule. Imperialism is the biggest threat to all nations and peoples and the fight against imperialism is the order of the day.
Another U.S. is necessary!
