Phil on the GWOT 4GW: A Genius Speaks

Dan, thanks for responding…,” by phil, tdaxp, 29 June 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/06/26/introduction_to_modern_warfare_for_seth_of_cck.html#c152828.

An exceptionally brilliant comment by tdaxp reader Phil appears below. My comments, which add so little to his clean summary, and interspersed

We are in a 4GW war with Islamic fundamentalists.

True. The Global War on Terrorism — or GWOT — is partially a 4th Generation War. It also appears to be a Global Guerrillas War. Add to that Operation Iraqi Freedom I, which was a Network-Centric War.

The GWOT is a full-spectrum war.

This is a state vs. a non-state actor. And this is not only a war that involves violent action, but it’s also a war of ideas.

True. And because a the purpose of 4GW is to erode an enemy’s will to fight, instead of just his ability to fight, the Global War on Terrorism is primarily a war of ideas.

The challenge that we face is in providing an alternative vision to what the jihadists are providing.

True. Dr. Tom Barnett calls this a “future worth creating” or a “happy ending.” The Enemy gives full spectrum happy-endings, from the individual mujahid (“you will go to Paradise, where beautiful virgins are waiting…”) to benighted Muslims (“the corrupt rules and hypocrite mullahs will be overthrown…”) to the grand idealists (“the Caliphate will unite all…”). We also need a full-spectrum response.

As I wrote before, the Neocons and Theocons may be the seeds of one…

Now there’s been a lot of talk on blogs about the inadequacies of American public diplomacy. The reality is that we don’t have time to wait for the politicians and bureaucrats in public diplomacy to get with the program.

True.

Colonel John Boyd divided up action into the OODA loop — Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. You can win if you get inside the enemy’s OODA loop — what people often call “getting into his head.” If you can act while your enemy is orienting, you can move on to the next stage while the enemy needs to go back to observe. You can paralyze the enemy with doubt and confusion.

Politics has an extremely slow OODA loop. It is not fast enough.

So what if another level were created, another level made up of non-state actors within the US, that were designed to fight the ideological war (no violence that’s the state’s monopoly).

True.

In a perfect world, organizations like Amnesty International and the International Committee of the Red Cross would be our non-state allies against the enemy. But they other objectives…

These organizations would not be subject to the political and bureaucratic labyrinths, but would pursue the ideological war independently.

MEMRI is an example of such an organization…

They would be entrepreneurial and able to adapt and respond quickly as circumstances changed. Al Qaeda has adapted itself to take advantage of the characteristics of our free society. What if we marshaled the characteristics of the free society to our benefit? The entrepreneurship, decentralization, the “chaos” of civil society.

Brilliant comment. Absolutely brilliant.

Lakotization is Family Liberation

First, your terminology is offensive,” by Seth, tdaxp, 15 June 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/06/11/delusional_iraqi_arab_sunnis_slouching_toward_lakotization.html.

The moral pathology of Lakotization doesn’t need a lot of space,” by TM Lutas, tdaxp, 29 June 2005, http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/06/25/lakotization_of_the_iraqi_sunni_arabs_family_disintegration.html#c152142.

Seth from CCK criticizes the term “lakotization”

First, your terminology is offensive. Saying we have “lakota”ed a people by destroying their culture is about as wonderful as saying people in Darfur were “jew-ized.”

While TM Lutas condemns on the lakotization process…

The moral pathology of Lakotization doesn’t need a lot of space. It’s almost self-evident that we’re going to regret doing this (if we are doing it) later. … Lakotization is a mistake morally, it won’t work practically, and should neither be advocated, nor tolerated.

That a Democrat partisan and a Rightist aficionado of The Pentagon’s New Map find common cause against lakotization is a sign that my attempts to defend it have failed. From these critiques, I gather it is an offensive pathological failure.

So instead of exporting fear, I will export hope. How can lakotization be repackaged so it doesn’t elicit such outrage

Simple, give it a new term: family liberation. The goal remains the same: destroy Enemy family structures and turn the individuals to rely on the state. But family liberation will be presented positively and its harmony with human rights will be defended.

Description: Family Liberation is an attempt to

  • change a culture
  • to decrease the strength of families
  • and increase the influence of the state

We know each of these can be done with little violence while respecting human rights.

Cultures are changed constantly. Even when change is effected by small sub-groups, we do not consider this a violation of human rights. We hear activists talking about changing the culture of violence, the culture of bigotry, the gun culture, etc. What these people mean is that they wish to change the folkways of a culture so that violence becomes less acceptable to all societies in that culture, that “bigotry” becomes less acceptable to all societies in that culture, that gun ownership becomes less acceptable to all societies in that culture, etc.

None of these agitating groups form a majority or anything close to it. All use whatever outside help they can get. And many times the state has propagandized and subsidized actions it considers in its interest. So changing a culture is an acceptable goal. So we know that cultures can be changed while respecting human rights.

Weakening families is an acceptable political goal. Christ agitated for weaker family bonds — as did Paul. Women’s liberation and children’s liberation — indeed, the whole of feminism — is concerned with withering these bonds. While such views may be noxious, the entire world (outside the Islamists) recognize the legality of such political efforts.

Likewise, Leftism has nearly defined liberation as dependence on the state. So encouraging state dependency is an acceptable state goal. A state-education, a state-pension, a state-protected job, etc, are seen as marks of “Freedoms.” The first President to speak of a United Nations Organization — Franklin Roosevelt, used the word in this statist way when we described his “Four Freedoms.”

All lakotization is — all I mean by family liberation — is the process of converting a society from family-centered to state-centered. America has liberated the families of the lakota and the blacks. We can do this to Iraqi Sunni Arabs to save a country.