”Dere er enten med oss eller imot oss”
Posted by Fredsvenn den august 31, 2009
Veien fra frigjøringskjempere til terrorister er kun et retorisk grep. I konteksten av den åpenbare provokasjonen det å sette opp 7 amerikanske militærbaser på colombiansk territorium (i tillegg til de tre basene USAs styrker allerede oppererer fra) og den truslen det utgjør for Venezuela og hele Latin Amerika advarte den venezuelansk-amerikanske dommeren Eva Golinger på TV programmet La Hojilla den 14. august 2009 om en ny krigsdoktrine nylig publisert av Pentagon og allerede i bruk i Venezuela: Irregulær krigføring.
Jutta Schmitt ved universitetet i Los Andes (ULA), hvor hun underviser i politisk vitenskap, har sett nærmere på denne nye krigsstrategien:
Considering the seriousness of what Golinger brought forward in the programme mentioned, it is pertinent to go more deeply into the matter in order to determine, how this new doctrine is connected with other concepts and realities as for example Fourth generation warfare as well as with ideological constructions like the so called Theory of the New Wars. The latter is a compound of arbitrary postulates originating from the academical realm and sold to the public as a ”theory” which dates back to the beginning of the new millennium and which has quickly found its way into the sphere of the national security strategies of both, the United States of America and the European Union. Once we’ve come to know the interrelations and the general context into which the latest war doctrines are inscribed we can better design our own defense strategies and even think of outlining a categorical counter-offensive.
In an update for the doctrine of Irregular Warfare released by the US Department of Defense in December last year, we find the following definition of the concept: ” … to fight unconventionally, such as by working with foreign security forces, surrogates and indigenous resistance movements to shore up fragile states, extend the reach of US forces into denied areas or battle hostile regimes.”
The directive then proceeds to explain the reasons for the update, referring in the first place to the emergence of irregular challenges that threaten the United States’ national security: ”The policy, a result of more than a year of debate in the defense establishment, is part of a broader overhaul of the US military’s role as the threat of large-scale combat against other nations’ armies has waned and new dangers have arisen from shadowy non-state actors, such as terrorists that target civilian populations.”
The idea that ”classical” or conventional wars between national states as experienced during the 20th Century are a thing of the past and that the new wars of the 21st Century are of an essentially different character, is not that new. Since quite a couple of years already the US-American and European ruling classes, through their big means of mass communication, have been suggesting to the world public opinion that the protagonists of the wars of the 21st Century are some ”bad guys” who operate as ”non-state-actors”, in other words, terrorists.
We are told that the wars of the 21st Century are and will be inner-state armed conflicts with endemic roots, that is, home-made. We are further told that this type of conflicts are of an ethnic, religious or political-ideological nature, promote terrorism, open the doors for drug-trafficking and organized crime and thus erode any effort to guarantee public order and internal security, reason for which they necessarily lead to the so-called ”Failed States.”
”Failed States”, in turn, endanger the peace of their surrounding region and thus constitute a security challenge to the ”modern” or ”civilized” countries, especially in our globalized world. The latter, for being ”superior” with regard to their values and economic and cultural performance, are obligated to intervene in those ”chaotic regions” for the sake of helping the populations there to recover or gain the firm ground of ”western-democratic civilization.”
We have to have this crystal-clear: The spreading and penetration of this kind of ideas forms an intrinsic part of another war doctrine, that of Fourth Generation Warfare, the main theater of operation of which is the human mind of both, the populations of the metropolitan countries as well as the populations of those countries who do not pertain to this auto-proclaimed ”western-democratic-civilization.”
The main objective of Fourth Generation Warfare fought on a world-wide scale is to bomb, weaken and then mold the human psyche so that the peoples of this world will succumb to the reality of globalized capitalism with its economic, financial, ecological, social and moral crisis, with its perverse concentration and monopolization of capital and power in the hands of some small elites, and to make the peoples of the world accept the eventual rise of a totalitarian, repressive and dictatorial system on a global scale, which we have referred to in earlier writings as ”globofascism.”
Specifically, the goal of 4th Generation Warfare worldwide is to make the populations of the metropolitan countries adopt, as their own, a supposed ”civilizing and pacifying mission,” based on the ”universal values of western democracy” which needs to be extended all over the world; and to make the populations of the ”periphery” give up on resistance and accept the forceful imposition of neo liberal, globalized capitalism and its rules of the game as the only viable way for humanity, thus making them refrain from seeking to establish alternative models, such as is the case here in our latitudes.
The cannons in this war against the human mind and psyche are the mass media and the artillery is ”information.” … (Les mer her)
The Pentagon approved last December a major policy directive that elevates the military’s mission of «irregular warfare» — the increasingly prevalent campaigns to battle insurgents and terrorists, often with foreign partners and sometimes clandestinely — to an equal footing with traditional combat.
The directive, signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England on Monday, requires the Pentagon to step up its capabilities across the board to fight unconventionally, such as by working with foreign security forces, surrogates and indigenous resistance movements to shore up fragile states, extend the reach of U.S. forces into denied areas or battle hostile regimes.
Irregular Warfare (IW)/ Irregular military is defined as a violent struggle among state and non-state actors for legitimacy and influence over the relevant population(s). Irregular warfare favors indirect and asymmetric warfare approaches, though it may employ the full range of military and other capabilities, in order to erode an adversary’s power, influence, and will. It is inherently a protracted struggle that will test the resolve of a nation and its strategic partners. Concepts associated with irregular warfare are not as recent as the irregular warfare term itself.
- False flag or pseudo-operations where troops of one side dress like another to eliminate or discredit them and their support, such as the Selous Scouts of the Rhodesian Bush War
- Freedom fighter — type of irregular military which the main cause, in their or their supporters’ view, is freedom for themselves or obtain freedom for others
- Franc-tireur — French irregular forces during the Franco-Prussian War. But is also used in international legal cases as a synonym for unprivileged combatant (see for example the Hostages Trial [1947—1948]).
- Guerrilla — someone who uses unconventional military tactics, tends to refer to groups engaged in open conflict rather than underground organizations. Term coined during the Peninsula War in Spain against France.
- Insurgent — an alternate term for a member of an irregular military. Tends to refer to members of underground groups such as the Iraqi Insurgency rather than larger rebel organizations such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia.
- Partisan — In the 20th century, someone part of a resistance movement. In the 18th and 19th century, a local conventional military force using irregular tactics. Often used to refer to resistance movements against the Axis Powers during the Second World War.
- Paramilitary — non-regular Armed Force with a claim to official status.
- Revolutionary — someone part of a revolution, whether military or not.
- Terrorist — irregular military who target civilians in order to gain political leverage; this term is almost always used pejoratively, and is, like the term freedom fighter, very subjective.
- More recently, private military companies, in particular the armed private security Forces that some operate could be considered an example of Irregular Military formations. In conflict zones such as Iraq such forces, whose members tend to be referred to as «Security Contractors», are often heavily armed and engage in supporting activities for the regular Military forces such as supply convoy escort and force protection. These forces are sometimes referred to as Mercenaries.
4GW — Fourth Generation Warfare
4GW (fourth generation wafare) is the term used by military thinkers to describe conflict at the end of the 20th century. In general, 4GW is an extremely effective method of warfare that the US and its allies will find very difficult to defeat (a slow burn, rather than complete eradication, may be the best possible outcome). I have outlined the basics of 4GW warfare below to enhance your understanding of the term.
4GW can be defined as a method of warfare that uses the following to achieve a moral victory:
- Undermines enemy strengths (this may seem obvious, but most of modern warfare has involved direct attacks on enemy strengths — find the enemy army and destroy it).
- Exploits enemy weaknesses.
- Uses asymmetric operations (weapons and techniques that differ substantially from opponents).
The rise of 4GW is both a product and a driver of the following:
- The loss of the nation-state’s monopoly on violence.
- The rise of cultural, ethnic, and religious conflict.
- Globalization (via technological integration).
4GW is fought on the tactical level via:
- Rear area operations — 4GW warriors do not confront a nation-state’s military but rather it society.
- Psychological operations — terror.
- Ad-hoc innovation — use of the enemy’s strengths against itself.
Generations of Warfare
The generational development of warfare can be outlined as:
- First generation — wars of Napoleon, conscription and firearms (the decline of mercenaries).
- Second generation — the US civil war and WW1, firepower and nation-state alignment of resources to warfare.
- Third generation — WW2, maneuver and armored warfare.
- Fourth generation — ad hoc warriors and moral conflict.
Many of the methods used in 4GW aren’t new and have robust historical precedent. However, there are important differences in how it is applied today. These include:
- Global — modern technologies and economic integration enable global operations.
- Pervasive — the decline of nation-state warfare has forced all open conflict into the 4GW mold.
- Granularity — extremely small viable groups and variety of reasons for conflict.
- Vulerability — open societies and economies.
- Technology — new technologies have dramatically increased the productivity of small groups of 4GW warriors.
- Media — global media saturation makes possible an incredible level of manipulation.
- Networked — new organizational types made possible by improvements in technology are much better at learning, surviving, and acting.
Winning a 4GW conflict
Victory in 4GW warfare is won in the moral sphere. The aim of 4GW is to destroy the moral bonds that allows the organic whole to exist — cohesion. This is done by reinforcing the following (according to Boyd):
- Menace. Attacks that undermine or threaten basic human survival instincts.
- Mistrust. Increases divisions between groups (ie. conservatives and liberals in the US).
- Uncertainty. Undermine economic activity by decreasing confidence in the future.