I stand by my statement. You cite “revolutionary times,” but I posit that that skill was lost once the US achieved the most powerful standing military on Earth. (Just like the British, who at that time in history had the most powerful standing military on Earth.) In Viet Nam, the US military clearly demonstrated that it couldn’t adjust to fighting a “fourth generation” conflict. The same lack of prowess was demonstrated in Iraq and Afghanistan.
You mentioned 4th generation warfare
Here are a few facts about it.
http.//www.
en.m.wikipedia.org/F
4GW enemy has the following characteristics: lack of hierarchical authority, lack of formal structure, patience and flexibility, ability to keep a low profile when needed, and small size.
[6] A 4GW adversary might use the tactics of an insur
gent, terrorist, or guerrilla in order to wage war against a nation's infrastructure. Fourth generation warfare takes place on all fronts: economical, political, the media, military, and civilian. Conventional military forces often have to adapt tactics to fight a 4GW enemy.[7Fourth-generation warfare - Wikipedia
Resistance can also be below the physical level of
violence. This is via
non-violent means, such as
Mahatma Gandhi's opposition to the
British Empire or the marches led by
Martin Luther King Jr. Both desired their factions to deescalate the conflict while the state escalates against them, the objective being to target the opponent on the moral and mental levels rather than the physical level. The state is then seen as a bully and loses support.
Another characteristic of fourth-generation warfare is that unlike in
third generation warfare, the VNSA's forces are decentralized. [B,]With fourth generation warfare, there may even be no single organization and that smaller groups organize into impromptu alliances to target a bigger threat (that being the state armed forces or another faction). As a result, these alliances are weak and if the state's military leadership is smart enough they can split their enemy and cause them to fight amongst themselves.[/b]
Fourth-generation warfare goals:
[8]
- Survival.
- To convince the enemy's political decision makers that their goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit.[9]
Yet, another factor is that political centers of gravity have changed. These centers of gravity may revolve around
nationalism,
religion, or family or clan honor.
Disaggregated forces, such as guerrillas,
terrorists, and rioters, which lack a center of gravity, deny to their enemies a focal point at which to deliver a conflict ending blow.
[8] As a result, strategy becomes more problematic while combating a VNSA.
It has been theorized that a state vs. state conflict in fourth-generation warfare would involve the use of
computer hackers and
international law to obtain the weaker side's objectives, the logic being that the civilians of the stronger state would lose the will to fight as a result of seeing their state engage in alleged atrocities and having their own bank accounts harmed.[
citation needed]
Three principal attributes of the new-age terrorism were held to be their hybrid structure (as opposed to the traditional microscopic command and control pattern
[10]), importance given to systemic disruption vis-a-vis target destruction, and sophisticated use of technological advancements (including social media and mobile communications technology).
[11] A terrorist network could be designed to be either acephalous (headless like Al-Qaeda after Bin Laden) or polycephalous (hydra-headed like Kashmiri separatists).
Social media networks supporting the terrorists are characterized by positive feedback loops, tight coupling and non-linear response propagation (viz. a small perturbation causing a large disproportionate response).
Please do not derail thread
This info is just a backdrop to enhance the present discussion.