Anonymous ID: 6adccc Aug. 20, 2020, 1:44 p.m. No.10361521   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>1737 >>1868

>>10361448

Here is a book on 4GW that is used by the US military. Attached as PDF.

 

Fourth Generation War (4GW) emerged in the late 1980s, but has

become popular due to recent twists in the war in Iraq and terrorist

attacks worldwide. Despite reinventing itself several times, the theory

has several fundamental flaws that need to be exposed before they

can cause harm to U.S. operational and strategic thinking. A critique

of 4GW is both fortuitous and important because it also provides us

an opportunity to attack other unfounded assumptions that could

influence U.S. strategy and military doctrine.

In brief, the theory holds that warfare has evolved through four

generations: 1) the use of massed manpower, 2) firepower, 3) maneuver,

and now 4) an evolved form of insurgency that employs all available

networks -political, economic, social, military-to convince an

opponent's decisionmakers that their strategic goals are either

unachievable or too costly.

The notion of 4GW first appeared in the late 1980s as a vague

sort of "out of the box" thinking, and it entertained every popular

conjecture about future warfare. However, instead of examining the

way terrorists belonging to Hamas or Hezbollah (or now Al Qaeda)

actually behave, it misleadingly pushed the storm-trooper ideal as

the terrorist of tomorrow. Instead of looking at the probability that

such terrorists would improvise with respect to the weapons they

used-box cutters, aircraft, and improvised explosive devices-it

posited high-tech "wonder" weapons.

The theory went through a second incarnation when the notion

of nontrinitarian war came into vogue; but it failed to examine

that notion critically. The theory also is founded on myths about

the so-called Westphalian system and the theory of blitzkrieg. The

theory of 4GW reinvented itself once again after September 11, 2001

(9/11), when its proponents claimed that Al Qaeda was waging a

4GW against the United States. Rather than thinking critically about

future warfare, the theory's proponents became more concerned

with demonstrating that they had predicted the future. While their

recommendations are often rooted in common sense, they are

undermined by being tethered to an empty theory.

Anonymous ID: 6adccc Aug. 20, 2020, 2 p.m. No.10361734   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>10361616

He is correct.

Q is garbage. You have to dig and sift to find the truth.

Q is a conspiracy. We are all conspiring here to overthrow the Deep State and the Shadow Government of the USA.

 

No way can be true.

Absolutely right, Trey.

No military intel guy who swore an oath and accepted the responsibilities of access to classified information would ever leak anything that was classified. He would only tell lies.

 

Debunked in 30 seconds.

Just like Trump's statement yesterday.

To the uninitiated it seems evasive, vague, unengaging.

But to us, we recognize the signs of knowledge

He know who Q is

And the point is not to acknowledge Q

The point is to ask questions and think for yourself.

 

Well done, Trey Gowdy!!!