War on Terrorism = 4th generation warfare

Here are some articles that elaborates on the 4th generation warfare concept.

www.d-n-i.net...
en.wikipedia.org...

Here is a simple rundown of the contents of the articles above:

1st gen warfare is a war between armies lined up in columns. Think american civil war and you will get it.

2nd gen = world war 1. attrition using immense firepower such as tanks, artillery and later aircraft.

3rd gen = blitzkrieg. High speed attack to penetrate deep inside enemy lines and destruction from the rear. Also involves special operations attack.

4th gen - can assume 2 forms, technologically inferior enemy and tech-capable. Tech inferior uses explosives while tech capable may use high tech weaponry such as emp bombs, electronic surveillance, cyber attacks.

Assymetrical attacks that totally bypasses the enemy military. attack is mostly on civilians and valuable soft targets such as power plants, govt offices etc. battlefield is blurred as combatants can be in the battleground itself or in the homeland. Goal is to cause chaos, disruption and collapse from within especially in the civilian sector. attacks rarely cause large casualty except in wmd attacks.

-end of summary-

War on terrorism is basically a 4th gen warfare. Militaries of the US and other coalition member are never confronted in direct ground battle. terrorist attacks on civilian targets causes chaos and confusion, resulting to disruption of daily lives and the economy. Dissent among the civilian population results to weakening of troop morale and ultimately ends in military pull-back.

We see this "collapse from within" exemplified in Spain and Philippines pullout from iraq. Bickering within the US of pro and anti war proponents and the lowering support for the war in iraq. In iraq, the target is not directly the citizens of the united states but the iraqis. Nevertheless, the results echo through the news and US citizens also loses appetite for the war. A collapse from within indeed.

Unless the Us is willing to employ indiscrimate attacks on all of its operations, seems like it will never win this one.

Ok, nice disection of the 4 gebneerations of warfare.. except the 3rd. WW1 started without tanks etc.. just people, artillery and Machinegun fire. Tanks broke the deadlock.


The you say this

Unless the Us is willing to employ indiscrimate attacks on all of its operations, seems like it will never win this one.

Again it just amazed me that people still think the US politely askes "do you mind terribly if we bomb your civilian centers?"

What do you think the US was doing in places like Columbia, Nicaragua and Cuba?

So in responce to your line "Unless the US is willing to employ indiscrimate attacks on all of its operations"....

THEY HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW AND THEY STILL WONT WIN!

[edit on 27/7/2005 by Corinthas]

You're right about the tanks but they are still too slow back then to be employed in blitzkrieg style attack. Basically, they are still mobile heavily armored machinegun platform.

About the US indiscriminate bombing, I believe you and i are on the same side about this issue. I also believe that US airstrikes result to needless civilian casualties.

Still I give credit to the americans. They could employ WW2 style carpet bombing of urban centers but still havent.

Originally posted by thaei
Still I give credit to the americans. They could employ WW2 style carpet bombing of urban centers but still havent.

And we won't, the American popoulace will not tolerate it.

You cannot blame all of this on our military. If the insurgents were willing to stand up and be accounted as our military is, this conflict would result in less casualities on the civilian side, and result in a quicker end to the occupation.

But that won't happen, we are fighting cowards and murderers.