Fifth Generation Warfare

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 05 Jun 2005 12:00:00 GMT
From clairefiles:
"John Ross has shown, in his novel Unintended Consequences that the traditional 'bottom-up' form of war; in which grunts kill grunts until one side runs out of grunts; is not the only way to wage a war. It is just the traditional way that the politicians have convinced many Americans is the only way. And many people on this board think it is the only way. Instead he showed, in fiction, how a top-down war might be waged. His message is not new. The First American Revolution was fought, in part, in that way. This Fifth-Generation War (5-GW) strategy does not waste combat troops. It does not destroy cities or masses of non-combatant people. It is the strategy that the politicians fear the most; because it kills them personally, and not their armies. It saps the politicians will to fight; as Sun Tsu taught us in his book The Art of War. Why do you think that they are so deathly afraid of Americans with .50 caliber rifles?" -- Speaker

# Allen Thornton - Laws of the Jungle - I finally read this. Here are some excerpts. It appears to have been written before the fall of the Soviet Union.

2: Anarchy's not a system or a structure; anarchy means nothing more than the absence of government. And just what is this government? It's a man-made invention. It's not some natural phenomenon or a special creation of God. Government's an invention, just like the light bulb or the radio.

3: The state was invented for me, to make me happier, but a funny thing has happened: If I don't want this invention, people are outraged. No one calls me unpatriotic for refusing to buy a light bulb. If I don't choose to spend my money on a radio, no one says that I'm immoral. Why should anarchy upset everyone?


If you profit from the state's existence, I would no more expect you to become an anarchist than I would expect a maggot to become a vegetarian.


But I can never know for sure what form society would take in the absence of government. That's the whole point of anarchy. It's not my anarchy or your anarchy; it's simply anarchy.


Peace is nothing. Perhaps there will come a time when you and I can settle our differences without resorting to violence; but for now, let's he honest. Everything done by government is based on force, on prisons and guns. Twentieth century man lives under two systems: war and a form of slavery called peace.


Some people assert that wars arise from man's natural instincts. But remember: People have to be threatened with prison before they'll join the military; and other people have to be threatened with prison before they will pay the taxes that fuel the conflict. Maybe war is not a part of human nature at all; maybe war is just a part of government's nature.


The original farmers could have used their excess wealth to buy protection; they could have maintained sovereignty over their own lives and property. Instead, they allowed a class of predators to evolve, men utterly contemptuous of the farmer and completely dependent on him. The history of the world is little more than a chronicle of those self-important pirates. When the actual producers of wealth tried to claim their lives and property, historians refer to "rebellions," "insurrections," and "anarchy."


Is anarchy more radical than democracy? Look at the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness--that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..."

The anarchist has nothing more radical to say than this. He merely points out that all forms of government are destructive of the ends for which they are created and that the people have the right to abolish them without instituting any new governments.


The problem with the Bill of Rights is fairly obvious: If individual rights mean government wrongs, then some party outside the government ought to judge the government's actions. Such a party would be sovereign over the government, and hence a government itself, so that no one could judge it and it could commit the same abuses as the government. Any system of entrusting the government to judge and correct its own abuses is the same as appointing the accused criminal as his own judge and jury: Don't expect many convictions. Don't expect to see your rights protected strenuously.


"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Latinate construction of the Second Amendment is vague enough for gun controllers to argue about, but it is fairly clear what the Revolutionary War veterans understood by the right to bear arms. They had just defeated the world's greatest military power and as long as they remained armed, no government, British or American, could tyrannize them again. The right to bear arms, from their point of view, was the right to overthrow governments. The weapons of the twentieth century include jet fighters, automatic weapons, nerve gas and nuclear bombs. If the government has them, the people have a right to own them too. Anything less is tyranny.

# Doug Newman - Let's Put Military Recruiters in Churches! - good screed against the unjustified war on Iraq.

I cannot speak for people half my age. However, I am going to put myself in the shoes of a 19-year-old looking at his options, with the military being one of them.

Iraq never attacked us. They never threatened to attack us. If they had attacked us we would have whipped them good. They never had the means to do so anyway. There were no WMDs. We got Saddam. They have had their election. And now, they are so busy fighting among themselves that they aren't about to attack anyone.

Why are we even over there? If some other country comes and invades, then I will go fight. Gladly! But, I am not going to risk my life in Iraq.

He speaks for the anti-war "movement" of 2005. You'll note no social commentary here. No ulterior motives. He just is not willing to be meat on the hoof when he sees no threat to himself or his country. Who can blame him?

Add comment Edit post Add post