The War over Fourth Generation Warfare

Outside of the Pentagon and military analyst circles, the theory of fourth generation warfare (4GW) is rarely heard of let alone discussed. Unfortunately the 4GW theory is not debated as often as it should be, and when it is discussed the debate only focuses on the theories proponents and those who completely deny the viability of the theory. I fall some where in the middle as I believe that the foundations of the 4GW theory are flawed, but the proponents have brought the possibilities of a protracted asymmetric war into sharp perspective. This is an important discussion with regards to the current war on terror and the billions being spent by the Pentagon to transform the military to confront the possibility of asymmetric wars of attrition.

Fourth Generation Warfare: A Primer

For the sake of brevity I will quote directly from the article that started it all.

“While military development is generally a continuous evolutionary process, the modern era has witnessed three watersheds in which change has been dialectically qualitative. Consequently, modern military development comprises three distinct generations.”

“First generation warfare reflects tactics of the era of the smoothbore musket, the tactics of line and column. These tactics were developed partially in response to technological factors — the line maximized firepower, rigid drill was necessary to generate a high rate of fire, etc.— and partially in response to social conditions and ideas, e.g., the columns of the French revolutionary armies reflected both the élan of the revolution and the low training levels of conscripted troops. Although rendered obsolete with the replacement of the smoothbore by the rifled musket, vestiges of first generation tactics survive today, especially in a frequently encountered desire for linearity on the battlefield. Operational art in the first generation did not exist as a concept although it was practiced by individual commanders, most prominently Napoleon.”

“Second generation warfare was a response to the rifled musket, breechloaders, barbed wire, the machinegun, and indirect fire. Tactics were based on fire and movement, and they remained essentially linear. The defense still attempted to prevent all penetrations, and in the attack a laterally dispersed line advanced by rushes in small groups. Perhaps the principal change from first generation tactics was heavy reliance on indirect fire; second generation tactics were summed up in the French maxim, "the artillery conquers, the infantry occupies." Massed firepower replaced massed manpower. Second generation tactics remained the basis of U.S. doctrine until the 1980s, and they are still practiced by most American units in the field.”

“While ideas played a role in the development of second generation tactics (particularly the idea of lateral dispersion), technology was the principal driver of change. Technology manifested itself both qualitatively, in such things as heavier artillery and bombing aircraft, and quantitatively, in the ability of an industrialized economy to fight a battle of materiel (Materialschlacht).”

“The second generation saw the formal recognition and adoption of the operational art, initially by the Prussian army. Again, both ideas and technology drove the change. The ideas sprang largely from Prussian studies of Napoleon's campaigns. Technological factors included von Moltke's realization that modern tactical firepower mandated battles of encirclement and the desire to exploit the capabilities of the railway and the telegraph.”

“Third generation warfare was also a response to the increase in battlefield firepower. However, the driving force was primarily ideas. Aware they could not prevail in a contest of materiel because of their weaker industrial base in World War I, the Germans developed radically new tactics. Based on maneuver rather than attrition, third generation tactics were the first truly nonlinear tactics. The attack relied on infiltration to bypass and collapse the enemy's combat forces rather than seeking to close with and destroy them. The defense was in depth and often invited penetration, which set the enemy up for a counterattack.”

“While the basic concepts of third generation tactics were in place by the end of 1918, the addition of a new technological element-tanks-brought about a major shift at the operational level in World War II. That shift was blitzkrieg. In the blitzkrieg, the basis of the operational art shifted from place (as in Liddell-Hart's indirect approach) to time.”

“In broad terms, fourth generation warfare seems likely to be widely dispersed and largely undefined; the distinction between war and peace will be blurred to the vanishing point. It will be nonlinear, possibly to the point of having no definable battlefields or fronts. The distinction between "civilian" and "military" may disappear. Actions will occur concurrently throughout all participants' depth, including their society as a cultural, not just a physical, entity. Major military facilities, such as airfields, fixed communications sites, and large headquarters will become rarities because of their vulnerability; the same may be true of civilian equivalents, such as seats of government, power plants, and industrial sites (including knowledge as well as manufacturing industries). Success will depend heavily on effectiveness in joint operations as lines between responsibility and mission become very blurred. Again, all these elements are present in third generation warfare; fourth generation will merely accentuate them.”

Additionally, 4GW was broken down by some of the proponents into the following three points:

1. The loss of the nation-states monopoly on war.

2. A return to a world of cultures and states in conflict.

3. Internal segmentation/division along ethnic, religious, and special interest lines within our own society.

Rebuttal:

First off, any examination of warfare cannot ignore the exploits of great military leaders such as Alexander the Great, Hannibal, Joshua the Israelite, Sun Tzu, or even George Washington. The impact these men had on warfare is still relevant to this day, regardless of the advent of new technologies.

Secondly, the nation-state has never held a monopoly on warfare. If they did, civil wars and political coups would be a thing of the past. Also, the influence of terrorism and revolutionary groups would have minimal impact or be completely nonexistent and they are obviously not.

Thirdly, the world cannot return to a state of conflict because it has never left. In the last twenty years alone conflict has been a way of life in Africa, while many Asian and South American nations have been ravaged by wars of attrition between nation-states and non-state actors. In Europe the conflict in the former Yugoslavia has forced many Western nations to patrol their own backyard.

Finally, the U.S. has always been divided along racial and religious lines. In fact, many sociologists have stated for years now that the U.S. is more of a mixing bowl as opposed to a melting pot. Religion has always been a fiercely debated topic in the U.S. as evidenced by Mitt Romney’s run for the Presidency and previously with JFK.

Tomorrow I will comment on where I agree with the proponents of 4GW as well as a counter definition that better defines the current state of warfare.

U.S. has Contingency Plan for Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons

When I wrote about bin Laden’s call to attack Pakistan and more recently about the probability of a civil war in that nation, the one thing that I sought to highlight is Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. I’m pleased that it only took a couple of weeks for the media and government officials around the world to begin discussing the possibility of these weapons falling into the wrong hands. Thankfully some folks in the Pentagon have put together a plan to deal with this problem should it arise. One of the articles I came across quoted a U.S. official as saying that the whereabouts of some of the weapons are unknown. If this is indeed fact, then unfortunately it may already be too late.

The Pakistani army is, for the most part, responsible for the safeguarding of the nuclear arsenal and it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), which has many supporters of the Taliban, is also involved. While the involvement of the ISI is almost certainly a problem in any contingency plan; the low moral of the army is another factor that may lead to trouble. The army has taken severe casualties fighting in the tribal areas where al-Qaeda and the Taliban currently reside and could fracture in the face of a political upheaval. One of the few things holding the army together is Musharraf’s desire to continue to wear his army uniform. If Musharraf decides to remove himself from the army, as many dimwitted talking heads in the west are telling him to do, it is very possible that the forces aligned against him would view this as a sign of weakness and try to topple his government. I do not believe that the pro-democracy forces in Pakistan stand a chance against the militant Islamists in the region. In fact, I’m not sure how Bhutto is still alive and am fairly certain she won’t be around much longer. The day she returned to Pakistan an attempted assassination via suicide bomber ended up killing 136.

In the face of anarchy in Pakistan and the fracture of the army, the U.S. would have to rely on military commanders opposed to the Islamists or intelligence from nations such as India and the U.K. to hunt down the nuclear arsenal to keep it out of the Islamists hands. The contingency plan for this scenario is still classified and the only thing I can do is speculate as to how the operation could play out. At this point it’s the only thing anyone can do.

As to the ISI having pro-Taliban and pro-al Qaeda elements in the ranks one thing should be mentioned. Prior to 9/11, the head of the ISI, Mahmoud Ahmed, order Omar Sheik to wire 100,000 dollars to Mohammad Atta, one of the hijackers that carried out the attacks. Once this was reported by the Wall Street Journal, Ahmed was forced out of his position. The 9/11 commission did not investigate this connection.

In other news: A women who immigrated to the U.S. and overstayed her visa has pleaded guilty to charges of using falsified documents to obtain employment with the FBI as a special agent and also with the CIA. She managed to obtain a security clearance and used the information in the FBI and CIA databases to find out what the U.S. had on her family. She is also charged with tax evasion and sending the proceeds to Hezbollah. Sleep tight!

A Little Humor

Every now and again its possible to find humor in even the most serious of topics. Last Friday a Muslim Sheik was sentenced to five months hard labor for fighting in public. What makes this story stand out among other terror related news is the statement made by the Judge at the trial. According to Malawi's Daily Times the judge, "admonished the five as the fight had dented the reputation of Islam as a religion of peace." Now if you read the counter at the top left of this page the number of Islamic terrorist attacks since 9/11 is about to reach 10,000. As I'm sure you are, I'm confused as to which information harms Islam more. For the full article click here.

The Kahane assassination

On this day in 1990 an oft forgotten, but influential, Rabbi was assassinated in New York. Meir Kahane was the founder of the Jewish Defense League and Kach, a group that would eventually be labeled a terrorist organization. Kach began life as a political party in Israel and would eventually capture a seat in Knesset. Because of Kahane’s inflammatory rhetoric, Kach would be labeled a racist organization was ultimately banned from the Knesset. In 1994, four years after Kahane’s death, Kach was labeled a terrorist group and outlawed in Israel. The event that caused this was the Hebron massacre when an adherent to Kach killed 29 Palestinian Muslims while they were at prayer.

What makes this assassination particularly interesting is the connection to individuals involved in contemporary terrorism. The accused assassin, El Sayyid Nosair, would be acquitted of murder, but would later be convicted as a co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing among other charges. Nosair was convicted along side the notorious Sheik Rahman; otherwise known as the Blind Sheik. Both men received funding for their defense from an up and comer in the terrorist world, Osama bin Laden.

Upon Kahane’s death the Kach movement splintered into two groups; one under the name of Kach and the other run by Binyamin Kahane, Kahane’s son, known as Kahane Chai. Binyamin Kahane would later be assassinated in 2000 in a strange twist of fate. Binyamin, along with his wife and children, were gunned down by members of Force 17 while driving to their home. The members of Force 17 claimed to not know the identity of the people they attacked and later stated it was luck that their victim was Binyamin Kahane.

Force 17 is a group within the Palestinian Fatah movement that has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks as well as the protection of the Yasser Arafat until his death. Currently the U.S. has been attempting to supply arms to Force 17 to curb the political consolidation efforts of Hamas. Unfortunately many of these weapons find their way into the hands of Hamas terrorists, while the arms that Force 17 does manage to receive are used to attack Israel.

Either coincidence or something else the assassination of Meir Kahane is truly a strange story.

Further notes:

Political leader of the LTTE, Liberation Tigers of Tamil, was killed in an air strike by the Sri Lankan military.

Pakistan looks as if it is about to deteriorate into a civil war. It may become incumbent upon the U.S. or India to remove or destroy Pakistan’s nuclear weapons before they fall into the hands of people who will use them.