[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]

/32/ - Psychopolitics

It's all in your head
Email
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webp,webm, mp4, mov, pdf
Max filesize is16 MB.
Max image dimensions are15000 x15000.
You may upload5 per post.


The IRC is active at Rizon's #32.

 No.988

Let's start the first /32/ book club meeting.

This week the topic is "Fourth Generation Warfare". The assigned texts were "The Changing Face of War - Into the Fourth Generation" & "Fourth Generation Warfare and the Moral Imperative". Did you get a chance to read them?

Did you seek any other texts on the subject?
I also read "Evolution of War - The Fourth Generation" and "Fourth Generation Warfare and Other Myths".

What did you think of the texts themselves?

What did you think of the topic?

Do you think you can give a good definition of 4th Gen Warfare?
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.989

Oh, and let's use the flags, because depending on the number of people this might get confusing.

<tinyboard flag alt></tinyboard>
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.994

Either none of you have read the texts, or those who showed interest were unaware of the date and time. Perhaps these were poorly chosen, given you likely have plans for the weekend.

This thread is not going anywhere, so if you would like to read the texts (which were made available in the Mega folder) feel free to post about them at any time.

There is not point in talking about the material if no one will contest my statements.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.999

This board is very slow so it'll take a while but replies should accumulate over time.

I'd never heard of the concept of 4G war before and I found the whole idea massively interesting and read further on the subject. I'll give a better summary of my thoughts tomorrow when I have more time but for now I'll just say that I think although 4G conflict is a very powerful lens through which to view events and place them in context and give them a sense of narrative, there is the possibility of applying the concepts too far and making connections where none in fact exist.

The best text I read on the issue was by Frans Osinga and used the metaphor that the theory of 4G warfare is to conflict theory as string theory is to physics, in the sense that it is fertile ground for discussion but has no realistically testable features. Well worth a read can be found here: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/boyd/osinga_4gw_boyd_copyright2007.pdf

Also worth noting is Boyd's OODA loop concept, something which I will be actively trying to incorporate in my own decision making process.

Finally, more internet digging landed me at John Robb's blog 'Global Guerrillas' which analyses contemporary events using the 4G framework. In particular the 'open jihad' and the actions of ISIS. See for example his post on the 14th of Feb where he talks about 'stigmergy' as a way of seeing how disparate parts of an organic can communicate in order to operate as a coherent whole. The comments section is often worth reading.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.1009

>>999
The whole idea of 4GW is attractive because of how vague it is. Almost any element of modern warfare can be made to fit into its definition, and that's not because of the astounding accuracy of the writers on the subject. The division of war into generations implies sudden shifts in global strategic thinking, or at least clearly differentiated periods in the development of warfare. Instead, we find that it has been evolving in a non-linear manner, and that the use of terrorism, maneuver warfare and psychological attacks to the enemy's will have been around for hundreds of years. The blurring of the line between generals, politicians and cultural leaders exists since the times of the high priests and emperors. The attacks on civilians were common currency during the middle ages, weren't they?

That is not to say that the theory is completely without its merits. The influence that globalization (both commercial and cultural) has had and will have on the way we wage war is undeniable, and the media that is available to us currently is a propaganda tool the likes of which the generals of old could not dream of. The emerging significance of transnational groups also must be acknowledged. What I am contesting is the idea that these trends consist of a whole new generation, instead of a mere organic branching on the evolutionary tree of war.

In regards to the learning cycle of organizations and of the military specifically, I recommend you read "Learning to Eat Soup With a Knife" by Nagl.

Personally, I find insurgencies and guerrillas to be a fascinating topic, and recommend any of the classic works from Mao, Guevara, Taber and Sun Tzu.
It is a common misunderstanding that guerrilla warfare is characterized by small units and hit-and-run tactics. In fact, the guerrilla is much more a political agent than a warrior. Highly efficient in his use of force, he achieves maximum political impact with minimal violence. To them mere existence is an act of defiance against the greater power and therefore a victory in itself, while for the state every battle fought - even if a victory - is a small defeat.

I would like to know more about how economic and cultural strikes are planned and carried out.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.2386

Though texts provided some useful information of the historical change of war and interesting observation, we've hit a point where 4GW has well and truly been birthed- We saw the first victims in the Arab Spring, and subsequently, Egypt, Ukraine and Syria. We saw the first Parallel use of military force and technocratic warfare in Ukraine, however much of the (sparse) technocratic warfare the US employed within Ukraine was unnecessary. The U.N/U.S already had a large cultural foot in Ukraine via the Left and managed to secure the majority of Ukraine's political spectrum. Russia had equal support in ethnic communities, that were consequently put under enormous pressure by UN based Ukrainian forces.

We saw the second instance of that same parallel warfare in syria, with large differences, namely the U.S. using a proxy (ISIS and the succeeding organizations armed by the US/UN) as the bulk of their troops, in an attritionative fashion. The technocratic warfare employed in Syria followed that same fashion.

What's interesting is that the observation Echevarria made that the people currently propelling 4GW are using an "unperfected art", so to speak, and consistently leaving holes within their strategy. The more intelligent or well educated a target culture is, the harder they are to subvert through tech. warfare. However, that's just one of many flaws.

>>1009

Sadly i can't recommend any books by knowledge, though there is always knowledge and learning to be found by tracing actions whose means serve the globalists.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.2399

>>1009

>the guerrilla is much more a political agent than a warrior. Highly efficient in his use of force, he achieves maximum political impact with minimal violence

>minimal violence

You couldn't be more wrong anon

Countries like germany which faced full bombardment during WWII were running again merely 10 years later

Other countries like colombia which looked promising in the early 20 century have been bleeded dry by guerrilla movements.

Its the frog in warming water effect: it starts slow with small attacks to police and military outposts, and before you know it the middle class (where most engineers, entrepreneurs and scientists come from) is leaving the country because of the violence while the upper classes become an enclave guarded by paramilitary death squads which only adds fuel to the violence and creates more recruits for the guerrilla among the poorer parts of the population that got caught in the crossfire because they can't afford to leave the country.

Countries where the guerrillas won, from vietnam to angola to nicaragua are complete shitholes. After the guerrilla destroyed the government their inherited a country thats was broken and bankrupt as the result of their actions, and because of the way guerrillas work internal power struggles develop within them so a lot of them either become a new regime thats far worse than anything the country had before or a new civil war erupts between the now divided guerrillas

China is one particularly bad case since the whole cultural revolution which killed millions was nothing more than an internal power struggle caused by mao's many fuckups during the great leap forward which also killed millions

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.2400

>>2399

Anon, while what you say has merit, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. Before we go any further, I should clarify the definition of guerrilla I subscribe to, so as to ensure we are indeed talking about the same thing. Guerrilla warfare is that which is waged by a group that has access to less physical resources than its opponent, resorting mainly to tactics that involve high mobility and indirect confrontation (such as ambushes, sabotage, hit-and-run tactics and strategic assassinations), and who makes use of political tactics to win the favor of the civilian population and use them as a support structure.

The state of the countries you mentioned has, in my opinion, less to do with the use of guerrilla tactics than with the revolutionary nature of the conflicts. It is not only understandable but expected that the conflicts you mentioned have resorted in significantly different political and social scenarios than before them, as that was the goal of the fighters. What I mean is: the cases of China, Vietnam, Nicaragua and so on resulted in significant political changes not because of the use of guerrilla tactics, but because this was the goal of the people who resorted to the guerrilla tactics. Look at the case of resistance movements in WWII. They were formed not by individuals who hoped to enact significant change, but individuals who wanted to prevent change (I am referring, of course, to the Nazi occupation of these countries), and to do so resorted to guerrilla tactics. These countries are examples of places where the guerrillas have won (in conjunction with conventional military forces), and which are not, as you put it, "shitholes". We can also look at the mujahideen, who used this kind of warfare to expel the smore powerful soviets from their country. Their goal was to cease international intervention in domestic policy, and their goal was achieved. True, the result was a country that arguably regressed economically and culturally, but to a previous point at which the fighters were aiming. The clearest example is probably the American Revolutionary war. There we see the use of guerrilla tactics combined with conventional conflicts resulting in the victory of the side supported by the guerrillas. Individuals involved in the fighting were later part of the government and helped determine the structures of government followed until this very day.

You could claim that the collaboration with a conventional force means that these are not "true" guerrillas, to which I would point out the cooperation between the vietcong and the NVA. You could also claim that guerrillas are necessarily used for revolutionary ends, to which I would disagree, but we would then enter into a discussion over the definition of guerrilla.

I stated that the guerrilla achieves "maximum political impact with minimal violence". I realize now that the misunderstanding probably arose from the fact that I used the term "violence" with the meaning of "force". The guerrilla fighter makes use of less force simply because less of it is available to him. He cannot call for artillery or for an air strike, so his offensive options are limited to smaller arms. He does not engage in full frontal assaults because not only would he be greatly overpowered, but also because it would serve no goals. An insurgent shooting a soldier at the back of the head with a pistol and taking his rifle has a greater effect on the morale of the soldiers than a direct enemy attack, because now they are aware that they might be attacked at any time by anyone. After weeks and months of IEDs and pot-shots from the trees, the soldier begins to look for a way to retaliate at an enemy he does not see, and he finds the only way to do so is by treating the non-combatants as the enemy. This generates popular discontent, which fuels the guerrillas, and so on and so forth. The guerrilla capitalizes on this snowball effect caused by the manipulation of the basic human instincts and the unavoidable heavy-handedness of its enemy.

It should also be pointed out that in the scenarios that you mentioned, it was not the guerrilla itself that turned these countries into what they became, but the governments that followed the conflict. True, a great deal of the government was made up of individuals who fought as guerrillas, but it was not their experience in armed conflict, but their incompetence, that caused them to turn out this way. Also, your cases focus on civil wars, while mine focus on foreign occupation. It would be an understatement to say that this is probably the most significant factor between our groups of examples, and goes to show the scope in which guerrilla tactics may be used.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

 No.2402

>>2400

>Look at the case of resistance movements in WWII

Your original example literally mentioned and I quote

>Mao, Guevara, Taber and Sun Tzu

You don't get to change it half-way because I just demonstrated how those cases resulted in a disaster far worse than any regime those countries these people were involved in had before.

Also WWII its a lousy example since those resistance movements were heavily supported by the allies while facing a widely hated invader in their own territory which had its own resourced stretched to the breaking point (nazi germany).

Guerrilla might have less force but the consequences of their actions tend to have a much higher human cost than the use of modern weapons. Put simply guerrillas are not above attacking civilians and most of the time they don't even have an actual target and just bomb a place which is why most guerrillas are actually considered terrorists unless the political climate demands they be called a more PR-term like "freedom fighters"

>the only way to do so is by treating the non-combatants as the enemy. This generates popular discontent, which fuels the guerrillas

Its actually the other way around as I mentioned, guerrillas actually use this strategy to create a spiral of violence. Because the regime can't use guerrilla tactics as well they become unable to operate against them so eventually the guerrilla becomes the new regime which is worse than the old one and suppresses any stories about its own wrong doings, which is basically what happened in china, cuba and many others

Guerrillas are far more likely to become extremists, fascists and overall totalitarian regimes because they have a very black&white view of the world else they would be unable to carry most of the operations they do. At the same time and unlike the regimes they fight they feel no obligation to subscribes to codes of war or to respect international law which the regime as the official government has to, so another advantage to them since its unlikely guerrillas will be held responsible for war crimes, specially since they don't even care or make records about it.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / 93 / biohzrd / hkacade / hkpnd / tct / utd / uy / yebalnia ]