America cannot win a 4GW -- a long-term war of ideas -- because she will betray herself first. Within a generation of the enslavement of Europe and China to Stalinism, arrogant American liberals combined with comfortable American leftists to do their best to defeat American action in the Vietnam War, and make South-East Asia safe for Communism.
If history repeats itself, or at least rhymes, within a generation of 9/11 active support of al Qaeda inspired movements should be fashionable on college campuses.
The reason that this treasonous behavior is more common among the left and the right is pretty clear: left-of-center politics is centered around the ideas such as "society should speak with more than one voice." As long as one system is powerful -- and America's system is powerful, because it serves her citizens and her own future needs very well -- the leftism distrust of authority will lead many of them to support whatever movement seems most able to destable the established order.
As a method of defending our country, 4GW is passe.
While America cannot win a 4GW, she can win a 5GW -- a war of hidden movements. America won the Cold War because, in spite of losing popular support for the struggle against Communism, she created institutions that kept the war going regardless of the will of the people or most political leaders. The Military-Industrial complex that gave America the ability to fight a world war long after the intellectual elite had despaired over nuclear "victory" was central to success.
To win this Long War against al Qaeda and her friends, we have to fight a 5GW. We have to build a Military-Industrial complex for fighting all Qaeda -- what one might call a "Military-Industrial-Systems Administration-Complex" after the work of Thomas P.M. Barnett -- long after political will has evaporated. We need an iron triangle of bureaucrats, contractors, and Congressmen to support the war out of reasons that have nothing to do with ideology, or else we will lose this war once the ideological pendulum has swung.
In a recent post, Dr. Barnett points out that there are now more contractors than soldiers in Iraq. This is a good sign, but not good enough. Future wars must be fought by locals, by private contractors, and others who are not motivated by ideology. That's the way 5th Generation Wars are won. That's the way the 5GW against al Qaeda will be won.
I've written three major posts on the 5th Generation of Modern Warfare
Additionally, there is an excellent blog dedicated to 5GW theory, named Dreaming 5GW after my original post, that I suggest that all check out.
OK tdaxp, I have to say that this line of thinking is pretty far different from my own. In this strategy you suggest, who exactly is it that wins?
And this provides a victory for America in what way exactly? And what "America" are you even referring to at any rate? It sounds like an America defined by an idea that no one is willing to consiously fight for. If America can only win by "[keeping] the war going regardless of the will of the people," who actually wins?
The idea that the Cold War would have been lost with great suffering if it were not for the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex is certainly not a given. Perhaps without the Complex, the conflict could have been resolved peacefully decades earlier and ended with better results for the world. That can't be proven, but neither can your position.
I would also caution you that your expressed idea of Ultimate Victory for America in the Long War is a pressure point that could be easily exploited by the 5GWarrior.
Posting this just to add a little heat and conflict into the discussion (after all, conflict and war is the subject matter), hoping that the community here can learn without descending into flame wars.
Thanks for the comment, Ryan.
Effortless victory.
If I contract with a mechanism to take care of my car, and my mechanic responds by going on about a 'vehicular war engine wear,' and attempts to convert me to some new ideology against rust, or some such, I would think he's off his rocker. I am willing to pay for services relating to engine care. I have better things to do than spend my life battling engine wear, when the mechanic can do that for me.
Similarly, when the people establish a government to protect their rights and give them a decent life, they do not expect to be permanently mobilized to fight this or that nemesis. The point of having a government in the first place is that it can fight these enemies and solve those problems for you. A government that exhausts its people by forcing them to choose between ideological correctness and survival is doing her citizens a disservice. A wiser state does the heavy lifting for the citizenry, so that the people can live their lives.
Do you merely say "perhaps," or do you say how this could have been done? The serious debate about the Soviet Union is when she transitioned from being a would be global hegemon to merely a Eurasian one. None of those possibilities provide much hope for the people actually lived in the eastern hemisphere.
How so?
Right from the beginning, you throw me off. I do not see 4GW as a "war of ideas" although warring ideas play a large part. Typically, I think of the distinction between 4GW and 5GW memetic conflict as being a difference in types of memes which come into conflict or else as a difference in types of conflict (friction?) involving memes. I haven't decided which, but also wonder if it's both. In any case, you throw me off.
That said...
I think you make a very interesting point when you single out "arrogant [American] liberals" and "comfortable [American] leftists" as being more susceptible to conversion. I'm not sure that the use of 'American' is necessary; I don't understand why 'comfortable' was used; but I like your distinction, and I think, actually, that you have noted something which may prove profound. The liberal/leftist and conservative/rightist split represents two very different styles of thinking, or cognitive frameworks, which are bound to lead to different types of memetic emergence. Typically, the one wants to upset things, shake things up or tear down the old to make way for progress, and the other wants to shore up the old. So naturally, the one will be more susceptible to memetic drift involving the co-optation of an ideology which has as its focus the destruction of a status quo.
Incidentally, vis-a-vis my first paragraph above, I think that an analysis of the types of memes and types of memetic conflict involved in 4GW, and of those types involved in 5GW, would prove enlightening for explaining the lib/left-cons/right dynamic and why "We will lose a 4GW against al Qaeda." Isn't al Qaeda's 4GW effort specifically designed to upset the conservative/rightist worldview? I mean, in all aspects, from the 4GW message to the actual 4GW activities which deliver that message: these are not really aimed to undermine the liberal/leftist worldview and may even be aimed to co-opt the liberal/leftist worldview or at least may offer justifications to the liberals and leftists for what they already believe. Whereas, the conservatives and rightists might respond to al Qaeda activities, ad infinitum, with, "How can this be...???!!!" (I.e., with confusion and a sense of cognitive/spiritual/personal failure.)
What I don't understand, Dan, and what I would like for you to explain better than you have, is how your “Military-Industrial-Systems Administration-Complex” will look, operate, etc., with special attention to how these parts will interact and inter-operate. Your fuzziness is a major factor in my failure to respond adequately to your last D5GW post mentioning that Complex. Off the top of my head, I wonder what this "Systems Administration" will comprise; e.g., what keeps it from being just another part of the Industrial component, especially given how industries are already trying to cash in on infrastructure work in Iraq and even elsewhere by expanding their operations. Until you've done a better job of explaining your complex, your drawing seems almost as vague as another oft-discussed term, Global Guerrillas. Can it be anything you want it to be, open to redefinition and idea theft as the future unfolds?
(I do have some ideas about the Complex myself, but I don't want to fall into the trap of defining the vague for its creator! And yes, I know Barnett has suggested some of the shape before you started using the idea of this Complex; it's just that I've picked a bone or three with that vision already, as well...)
Curtis,
Your criticism of the fuzziness of the military-industrial-sysadmin-complex is granted. It's something I need to develop, hopefully soon on the blog.
To address the minor points:
4GW is unique among the generations in its focus of a large population having belief or at least sympathy in a grand unifying ideal. Boyd's work on "moral warfare" is useful here.
America is the world's largest exporter of security -- French leftists just don't matter that much.
Merely to indicate that Leftism in America is not a product of a propertyless working class, as it is in some countries. Rather, American leftism is a product of people who oppose the idea of one strong voice, the leisure time required to do something about it, and the lack of responsibilities such that they won't feel the consequences.
Agreed.
al Qaeda's 4GW effort is to deprive their near enemies of foreign support. This involves demonstrating to America and similar states the high costs of supporting friendly governments (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.).
al Qaeda is thus the enemies of Americans in the broad center who do not wish to have radical departures in foreign policy dedicated by aggressors, but she finds more sympathies in radicals (of both the Left and Right) who desire swift change and see al Qaeda as a useful in achieving their goals (the Muslim Brothers over there, Ron Paul over here, etc), even though al Qaeda's sympathizers do not agree with her methods.
Ryan:
"The idea that the Cold War would have been lost with great suffering if it were not for the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex is certainly not a given. "
There were a few options:
Agressive Option:Fight a 2GW/3GW big war (or series of smaller wars) to rollback the Soviets --> Outcomes: we might win, draw, or lose
Appeasement Option: Give them want they want slowly and hope they stop wanting more -->Outcomes: we draw or lose.
Containment Option: Hold the line in the big places, fight on the margins, avoid big losses short-term, build up up economic power and soft power and wait for the Soviets to implode on the there own in the long run.
Containment was the best of these options. The west did not have the will to keep subscribing to this as much of the west was sympathetic to, actively supporting, or had been co-opted by the Soviets. By institutionalizing the cold war effort, the 5GW effectors of 1947 set in motion the continual activity of containment.
What other other would have worked better in the short term without the destruction of a big war?
Ryan:
Victory is a less dangerous world (shrinking the afro-islamic centered gap as the source of danger), allowing prosperity and opportunity.
It is for Americans yes, because I am an American and I think out good outcomes for the US.
The outcomes would also be good for really...everybody in the world. Excepting the forces and direct benefiters of Totalitarian Islam and other sources of gap-ness.
Not that I want to sound like too much of a cryptocalvinist.
How would you describe victory?
Hi everyone. Good discussion, provocative questions. I'm just dropping a note to say that responding to this post again has been in the back of my mind, but I have not yet found the time. I'll try to post something in the next few days.
PurpleSlog,
Thanks for the help!
RyanLuke,
We're waiting! :-)
Hi guys,
I think I'll have to just jump ahead to comment on tdaxp's next post on this topic. I have a feeling that will be a more fruitful conversation from that starting point. Too many posts, not enough time!
RLW