Fourth Generation Warfare Evolves, Fifth Emerges

Seventeen years ago, a small group of authors introduced the concept of “Four Generations of War.” Frankly, the concept did not get much traction for the first dozen years. Then came 9/11. Some of the fourth-generation warfare (4GW) proponents claimed that the Al-Qaeda attacks were a fulfillment of what they had predicted. However, most military thinkers, for a variety of reasons, continued to dismiss the 4GW concept. In fact, about the only place 4GW was carefully discussed was on an Al-Qaeda website. In January 2002, one ‘Ubed al-Qurashi quoted extensively from two Marine Corps Gazette articles about 4GW.1 He then stated, “The fourth generation of wars [has] already taken place and revealed the superiority of the theoretically weak side. In many instances, these wars have resulted in the defeat of ethnic states [duwal qawmiyah] at the hands of ethnic groups with no states.”

Essentially, one of Al-Qaeda’s leading strategists stated categorically that the group was using 4GW against the United States—and expected to win. Even this did not stimulate extensive discussion in the West, where the 9-11 attacks were seen as an anomaly, and the apparent rapid victories in Afghanistan and Iraq appeared to vindicate the Pentagon’s vision of high-technology warfare. It was not until the Afghan and Iraqi insurgencies began growing and the continuing campaign against Al-Qaeda faltered that serious discussion of 4GW commenced in the United States.

Yet today, even within the small community of writers exploring 4GW, there remains a range of opinions on how to define the concept and what its implications are. - - - snip to fit limit - - - That brings me to the purpose of this article: to widen the discussion on what forms 4GW may take and to offer a possible model for the next generation of war: 5GW.

The whole article is an interesting read, but this paragraph from a section on PMC's (Private Military Companies) got my attention:

"The sudden presence of PMCs in numerous conflicts worldwide presents some interesting challenges to the international community. In the more than 300 years since the Treaty of Westphalia, we have developed diplomatic, economic, and military techniques for dealing with crises created when nation-states use armed force—or even threaten to use it. We do not have such mechanisms in place when nation-states or even private individuals employ armed contractors. If China had announced that it planned to send multiple field armies to Angola to assist with security and construction there, the UN would at least have opened up a dialogue. Yet a Chinese company has signed a contract to do just that, except that it will substitute 850,000 armed and unarmed contractors for the field armies. This event has simply not shown up in international discussion. It is particularly interesting because China has just signed a 10-year contract with Angola to purchase oil at $60 a barrel. While the contractors are not an official branch of the Chinese Government, their presence clearly puts China in position to “resolve” any disputes with the Angolan Government over that contract. Thus, thanks to the creative use of PMCs, brokering agreements between nation-states and even the process of intervening to resolve disputes between parties has moved outside the international system. How does the UN respond to a contract dispute between an armed private company and a government?"

These are some very pertinent questions, especially with the latest fuss over a particular US Private Military Company contractor. One wonders why this example has not been much commented upon in the MSM... for a nanosecond or so.

“clearly a hit piece against Blackwater.”

I don’t think so. The section of the article on Private Military Companies is simply one in a sequence of examples of the proliferation of novel ways of marshalling and projecting military power... nation states “out-sourcing” their military activities rather than committing their own forces. This was fairly common in past centuries, and appears to be making a big comeback as nation-states struggle to maintain their relevance.

What is interesting is that, with all the flack about Blackwater, there is no notice of the other instances of this type of outsourcing activity - - - - including this one by China in Angola. It’s really amazing - - - 850,000 “contractors” - - - that’s far more than the US forces in Iraq, even after the ‘surge’. But dead silence in the MSM, even though PMC Blackwater is currently a hot news topic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.