Fourth Generation Warfare. Like I said on an earlier thread, we’re already in a war, and have been for over a decade. These two articles give a lot more insight to what the hell is going on, and has been for several years.
http://www.d-n-i.net/second_level/fourth_generation_warfare.htm
And posssibly the first one to read is:
http://www.virginia.edu/soasia/newsletter/Fall01/warfare.html
With the right approach, you can restore old hardware—whether through soaking, scrubbing, or polishing—giving it a fresh look while preserving its original charm.
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Dig into cutting-edge approaches and decades of proven solutions with total access to our experts and tradespeople.
Start Free Trial NowGet instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.
Start Free Trial Now
Replies
I don't want to get too picky here but wouldn't this thread fit in better in the Woodshed?
Don't get me wrong. I think the concept of "fourth generation warfare" has some potential validity and value as a conceptual construct and intellectual solvent and may, given enough time and effort, precipitate out meaningful conclusions and situational dynamics linkages of both present and historical event to establish generalized modalities and time lines with probable outcomes based on historical events. These prototypical modalities can then be fed back into the analysis to check their validity. Once high correlations are obtained and confirmed the real work can begin.
Once a mechanism can be isolated, even if it is not completely understood, it can then be applied to the present, or any future, situation to illuminate the topography of the factions and issues, identify and obviate potential wasted efforts, present options and points of inflection unrevealed by other analytical methodologies or constructs and establish a methodology for predicting future event in light of any particular response or environment.
That said, IMHO, it seems out of place in the "general discussion" area of a construction forum.
Sonny,
Thanks for this reference. I hadn't heard the term before but am well convinced of the concept.
One of my greatest concerns is that we would lose this war because of the great number of our citizenry who think of war in terms of the past and old modes of fighting nations. This war is being fought without borders, a religiously fanatical force agaisnt a monetary concept that is based on personal freedoms, regardless of the source, homw, or current dwelling of either.
The British lost in the War of American Revolution simply because they did not understand the new rules of warfare for that time. No more tin soldiers marching like Roman Phalanx' into the maw of canon fire to sacrifice their blood wastefully.
If we try to fight this war in the exact same way as past wars, we will lose as did the British to the Americans. The biggest problem is the ten or fifteen percent of the poipulation who don't even realize that we are already at war, in spite of 9-11 and all the other attacks on our bases around the world.
Excellence is its own reward!
Woodshed it should of been.
Right, piffin, most people still do think in terms of military "equipment" and "armies."
What's scary is that the enemy, typically in any battle, tries to maim/kill as few civilans as possible. In our new 4GW, civilans are actually the target. I feel the if we get "hit" with one or two more substantial attacks directed toward civilians, Americans natural desire to "not" maim/kill and civilians of the countries training, harboring or other wise aiding terrorists, will wane, and we''' soon develop a "kill them all" philosophy and if "their" civilians get in the say, so be it.
At that point the doves closer to looking and sounding like the hawks.
That's why many years ago I learned to never say "never."