4th Generation Warfare

[Durthorin]

The nature of the wars we are now fighting in comparison with the wars ww have fought and the military we have constructed to defend us. The question arises is the US military or for that matter any nations military in their present format the best tool to meet enemies we're now facing.

Isreal is in the midst of a good example of the powerful nation-state army vs the weaker asymetrical force.. Are they winning? If not how could they? An what lessons does this show us since our military is even more classically formated to refight set piece conventional warfare. Perhaps rather than building up the present military the object should be to redesign it. If so what type of military would get the job done? Smaller light infantry units along the lines of the Rangers with investment in individual soldier based technology as opposed to military Armor and Air?


http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm

[Darth Executor]

The nature of the wars we are now fighting in comparison with the wars ww have fought and the military we have constructed to defend us. The question arises is the US military or for that matter any nations military in their present format the best tool to meet enemies we're now facing.

Thanks for posting this article. Personally, I thought it was brilliant.

Isreal is in the midst of a good example of the powerful nation-state army vs the weaker asymetrical force.. Are they winning? If not how could they?

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/4th_gen_war_gazette.htm[/QUOTE]

I think they are winning. However, one thing I can infer from the article is that what Israel is doing cannot be done by every country. Israel builds walls to keep terrorists out. Israel is a very small country. There is not much land, and what there is is not that difficult to protect from enemy infiltration. Their airport security is good as well (something all countries should have). The US, for example, is big. It is practically impossible to secure its borders to such an extent that no terrorist can get in anymore. The US is also plagued by really, really bad intelligence. Few to no assassinations would be a symptom of this. A lot of problems would be solved if, instead of bombing the crap out of a country, you would secretly kill some key members of its government and let the rest fight for power.

The article also mentioned the media. Unfortunately, to win the "culture war" against terrorists you'd have to dump democracy because the West is full of morons who, when ordered by terrorists to jump, they ask "how high?". I think that ultimately, the worst enemy we'll ever face is ourselves. The US does not have as much of a problem as other parts of the West (like most of Europe). I guess that's one thing to be happy about.

[Durthorin]

I think they are winning. However, one thing I can infer from the article is that what Israel is doing cannot be done by every country. Israel builds walls to keep terrorists out. Israel is a very small country. There is not much land, and what there is is not that difficult to protect from enemy infiltration. Their airport security is good as well (something all countries should have).

Actually, I'd say they are loosing for many of the same reasons you list. The terrorists to use the axiom don't have to win, just avoid being destroyed. As such, I can not see the use of forces that Israel has on the board now destroying them. In fact in the media war thats going on as well, the terrorists are going to increase. Israel as a nation is essentially under a state of siege. The bombings that have taken place within Israel itself also show that even given the massive resources given to internal security they are still being reached.

The US, for example, is big. It is practically impossible to secure its borders to such an extent that no terrorist can get in anymore. The US is also plagued by really, really bad intelligence. Few to no assassinations would be a symptom of this. A lot of problems would be solved if, instead of bombing the crap out of a country, you would secretly kill some key members of its government and let the rest fight for power.

In the case of terrorists this means desrupting their command structure by infiltration and assisnation. As to securing the US.. I have to agree totally with your assesment an add that a number of our own cultural behaviors & laws make security from this type of warfare almost immpossiable as it stands currently. Picture the reaction to a National ID card for example that had to be produced on demand.

The article also mentioned the media. Unfortunately, to win the "culture war" against terrorists you'd have to dump democracy because the West is full of morons who, when ordered by terrorists to jump, they ask "how high?". I think that ultimately, the worst enemy we'll ever face is ourselves. The US does not have as much of a problem as other parts of the West (like most of Europe). I guess that's one thing to be happy about.

I think the "Culture War" is what will cause Israel to stop before achiving a military solution. Which in effect will be if anything almost worse than doing nothing at all. We're already seeing this with the stories about Qana and the reaction. One reason I think we(the US) have less problems than the rest of the "West" is geography. The orginizations that hate the US most are simply not close enough to us yet.

I'm starting to believe the statement that World War III is not coming, its already being fought.

[Gideon Brown]

Yeah, good article, Dur - from 1989, I notice. In Canadia our armed forces have embraced the concept as far as limited funding will allow. There's one particular aspect of this I'd like to comment on, something that's especially easy to see in Canada because it's often mistaken for lack of funding.

From the article:

more emphasis on maneuver. Mass, of men or fire power, will no longer be an overwhelming factor. In fact, mass may become a disadvantage as it will be easy to target. Small, highly maneuverable, agile forces will tend to dominate.

Fourth is a goal of collapsing the enemy internally rather than physically destroying him. Targets will include such things as the population's support for the war and the enemy's culture. Correct identification of enemy strategic centers of gravity will be highly important.

Let me give an example: recently we decided to scrap our tanks. That's right, no more tanks, whatsoever. What we're going with instead are a series of excellent LAVs. Now, some people will look at this and say, 'Well, that's ridiculous! How can a modern army not have tanks?' They assume it must be a funding issue - we can't afford them.

That's certainly true in part - we have a funding problem. But what's also true is that tanks just don't fit into our 'vision' of the role of the Canadian army. We've been relatively succesful recently in finally ditching the Cold War mentality (soldiers engaging in pitched battles, little emphasis on urban warfare, etc.). We've come to the realization that all of the operations we are likely to be involved in in the near future will be 4th generation type stuff.

I guess the reason I mention all this (and feel it's important) is that fighting 4th generation warfare is going to require a significantly different mindset on the part of everyone, not just military pers. If the taxpayer (for example) doesn't realize that - if he looks and says, 'Well, why the heck isn't my money going towards shiny, impressive symbols of dominance like tanks?', it could actually waste money, jeopardize efficiency, and cost lives.

Again to use Canada as an example, it's easy to look at the army (and people have and do, which is why I bring this whole issue up) and say, 'Well, look. We don't have tanks. We don't have attack helicopters. We're obviously not doing anything on the world stage.' Well, I think the troops in Afghanistan would beg to differ. But if the population at large doesn't understand that the world has moved into 4th generation warfare, the misperception that 'we're not doing anything' will be harder to dispel. Similarly, it's harder to explain things like civilian casualties and 'collateral damage' to the average person on the street if they don't understand the way combat is being fought these days.

Just some thoughts.

[Durthorin]

Yeah, good article, Dur - from 1989, I notice. In Canadia our armed forces have embraced the concept as far as limited funding will allow. There's one particular aspect of this I'd like to comment on, something that's especially easy to see in Canada because it's often mistaken for lack of funding.

!989. I think the proonents of 4th gen warfare are bing proven right by history while those generals and politicans trying to refight a third gen war are beging to look like the French Generals who wanted to build the Maginot line.

Let me give an example: recently we decided to scrap our tanks. That's right, no more tanks, whatsoever. What we're going with instead are a series of excellent LAVs. Now, some people will look at this and say, 'Well, that's ridiculous! How can a modern army not have tanks?' They assume it must be a funding issue - we can't afford them.

True be told the utility of tanks in warfare has been argued ever since Vietnam. Thier primary purpose on the battlefield has become reducing strongpoints and killing enemy tanks. As early as the 80s/90s the US army was seeing that tank killer chopper units were getting kill ratios against armor that was flatly scary with modern surface to air anti-tank munitions. An considering the price tag of an Abrams.. unafforadable. But look at Afganistan and Iraq.. their utility is minimal to non-existant and military units are begging for effective light armor

I guess the reason I mention all this (and feel it's important) is that fighting 4th generation warfare is going to require a significantly different mindset on the part of everyone, not just military pers. If the taxpayer (for example) doesn't realize that - if he looks and says, 'Well, why the heck isn't my money going towards shiny, impressive symbols of dominance like tanks?', it could actually waste money, jeopardize efficiency, and cost lives.

Unfortunatly, one you forgot is those that have a vested interest in building weapons that have no real use but a big price tag.

[Gideon Brown]

Unfortunatly, one you forgot is those that have a vested interest in building weapons that have no real use but a big price tag.

Ouch, I *did* forget that. Sometimes I think I'm not cynical enough to talk politics.

[Durthorin]

Ouch, I *did* forget that. Sometimes I think I'm not cynical enough to talk politics.

The politics of weapons production here in the US is both big business and big politics. Look at the politics behind the LAV/Striker vehicle, if your interested.

[Gideon Brown]

The politics of weapons production here in the US is both big business and big politics. Look at the politics behind the LAV/Striker vehicle, if your interested.

I am interested, so I will look it up sometime, thanks.

[Darth Executor]

Actually, I'd say they are loosing for many of the same reasons you list. The terrorists to use the axiom don't have to win, just avoid being destroyed. As such, I can not see the use of forces that Israel has on the board now destroying them.

Israel does not need to destroy Hezbollah either, they can simply keep them out of range. If Hezbollah can't fight back, they might as well be destroyed because they are rendered useless. It doesn't even matter if they get new recruits because (and I'm assuming an international force sets up a force in southern Lebanon) they will have to resort to either sneaking into Israel (which would be practically impossible) or attack the international forces which should (I'm being optimistic) stop UN support and put them in a really bad situation.

In fact in the media war thats going on as well, the terrorists are going to increase. Israel as a nation is essentially under a state of siege.

The media war is going very well. Luckily for Israel however, the people who fall for it are practically impotent.

The bombings that have taken place within Israel itself also show that even given the massive resources given to internal security they are still being reached.

I haven't heard of a suicide bombing in quite a while. The bombs that are dropping on Israel are rockets. If they remove Hezbollah from their position (and it looks like Israel won't stop until they do it) they will stop being a problem. I think that, all things considered, Israel has done a great job with their defense.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your assessment.

[Darth Executor]

The politics of weapons production here in the US is both big business and big politics. Look at the politics behind the LAV/Striker vehicle, if your interested.

Who cares about the politics, look how awesome it looks.

[Durthorin]

Who cares about the politics, look how awesome it looks.

Compare it to the upgraded M113.

[Darth Executor]

Compare it to the upgraded M113.

This? I like the LAV better, this one looks too much like a big box.

[Durthorin]

This? I like the LAV better, this one looks too much like a big box.

http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/000853.html

Its a pretty good rundown of the arguments of the track vs wheel , armor.. mobility etc..

[Teallaura]

Um, stupid question, but why aren't those considered tanks? There is a strong resemblance to the untrained eye....


By the way, have you guys seen this show? It's pretty interesting - at least to me.

[Darth Executor]

Um, stupid question, but why aren't those considered tanks? There is a strong resemblance to the untrained eye....

They don't have a big gun.