William Lind reviews his collegue Chet Richard’s book "Neither Shall the Sword".
The book and the review is about fourth generation warfare (4GW). A concept that envisions that third generation wars, Blitzkrieg like big army operations, are essentially a thing of the past and present and future warfare is a fight about the legitimacy of the central state between the central states and non-state actors. John Robb’s Global Guerrillas is one of the most far out sites on this concept.
I agree that this thought-frame does have some value and I think nation states today are weekening themselfs far too much by conceding more and more power to privat actors, i.e. corporations and belief-groups.
But aside from that concept, there is a typical exceptionalist argument made by Richard exposing the blind spot of U.S. 4GW thinkers.
Lind writes:
Richards makes additional valuable points. One is that the Bush administration has fundamentally miscast the nature of the conflict we now face. He argues that
and now Lind cites Richard:
war is terrorism, so a “war on terrorism” is a war on war. We are not in a war on “terrorism” or engaged in a “struggle against violent extremism.” Instead, we are faced with an evolutionary development in armed conflict, a “fourth generation” of warfare that is different from and much more serious than “terrorism”…
to see the difference between 4GW and “terrorism,” run this simple thought experiment: suppose bin Laden and al-Qaida were able to enforce their program on the Middle East, but they succeeded without the deliberate killing of one more American civilian. The entire Middle East turns hostile, Israel is destroyed, and gas goes up to $15 per gallon when it is available. Bin Laden’s 4GW campaign succeeds, but without terrorism. Do you feel better?
I agree with the first paragraph. For example: Any competent gang with a bit of brain can hit some infrastructure, like a pipeline, and at the same time have some call options or the like on gasoline prices. The act delegitimizes the state and generates exorbitant profits to finance the next action. In Iraq, that’s daily business and unless they let Saddam go and give him tanks, that state may well lose its credibility over this and dissolve.
But Richards second paragraph is nuts.
"The entire Middle East goes hostile" – Hostile to whom? Why? Could that be a reaction, not an action?
Is there any country in the Middle East that is, in its heart, friendly to the U.S. today?
Currently there is a bunch of dictators in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere being payed one way or another by the U.S. There is a powerless puppet regime in Iraq and religion based, and thereby pseudo democratic governments, in Iran and Israel. Non of these, including Israel, is at its heart really friendly to the U.S. or anyone else. States have interests. If Osama Whoever would rule there, he would have become a state-actor, and, by definition, vanished as a GW enemy. It would not change the rules of the game.
"Israel is destroyed" – Wow – the U.S. might lose its colony. Please note that muslims do not fight Israel for its people being jewish, they fight it for robbing their land. And as long as Israel does not even adhere to basic human behaviour vis-à-vie the native population and steadily enganges in extending its territory, there is not much reason to give a shit. Sow wind and you will reap storm.
"gas goes up to $15 per gallon" – Ahhh – now here is the real bummer that wakes up the standardised U.S. reader. Finally a boogieman that might get attention and sell the book.
But to keep up $15 per gallon for a while would be the best thing that could ever happen in Richard’s envisoned 4GW case. Within two or three years the oil dependent countries would really change their behaviour and jump away from those carbonhydrids. Following that, the oil price would crash (like it did after the 70’s oil boycott) and with it the power of the rulers in oil rich countries.
The only reason why the "west" is interested and engaged in the Middle East, and why it reaps this reaction, is its addiction to oil. Take that away with a period of very high oil prices and the addiction will heal itself.
The enemy in 4GW are stateless actors, not some oil rich countries in the Middle East, whoever might rule them.
4 GW as business out of control of the people is a real danger. But Richard’s arguments to sell that basicly sound concept is just neocon thinking in new cloth.