A Farewell to Arms (For Now)
This will be the last On War column, at least for the foreseeable future. I will (unexpectedly) retire from Free Congress Foundation, where I have worked for 22 years, at the end of this month. Once I am re-established, either with a new institution or in retirement, I intend to re-start the column. When that will be I do not know. It also depends on obtaining connection to a telegraph line, which is not available everywhere.
After 325 columns, what is left to be said? Two points, I think, are worth noting in closing. First, since the Marine Corps Gazette article that first laid out the framework of the Four Generations of Modern War was published in 1989, events have largely followed the course it predicted. That is not to say I was right in all my predictions in these columns. Were my crystal ball that accurate, I would be a rich man. (Being rich, as a Rothschild once defined it, is being able to live comfortably on the interest on the interest.) But in broad terms, the theory has had predictive value, which is the test of any theory.
In particular, the theory’s definition of Fourth Generation war has proven prophetic. Since 1989, the world has witnessed a progressive weakening of the state and rise of alternative, non-state primary loyalties, for which a growing number of men are willing to fight. That is the heart of my definition of Fourth Generation war. As Martin van Creveld says, what changes is not how war is fought, but who fights and what they fight for.
Other definitions of 4GW, including defining it as just a new name for insurgency, miss the mark. Fourth Generation war is more than a buzzword. It is the biggest change in war since the Peace of Westphalia.
The second point I would close with is that the U.S. military doesn’t get it. Some European militaries do get it. Many Fourth Generation entities (not all) not only get it, they are writing the book. But the U.S. military is largely an intellectual void. Its two implied (and related) theories, that wars are decided by comparative levels of technology and by who can put the most firepower on targets, have both been proven false. Were they true, we would have won the Iraq and Afghan wars quickly. In fact, the Pentagon was so blinded by its false theories it thought we had won them quickly. Sorry, guys.
While many junior and field grade officers in the U. S. military have found value in the Four Generations framework (which says that American armed forces are not one, but two generations behind), the brass studiously ignores it. “Not invented here” is part of the problem, but the larger part is that our major headquarters think little if at all about war. What they think about is money. 4GW does little to justify bigger budgets. On the contrary, it suggests that most “big ticket” weapons programs are irrelevant to where war is going. That is not what the brass, or the defense companies they plan to work for after retirement, want to hear.
What might change that picture? Nothing will change in DOD until the money simply isn’t there anymore. The news, which is simultaneously good and bad, is that the money soon won’t be there. Like every previous imperial power, we are bankrupting ourselves. A trillion dollars here and a trillion dollars there, and soon it adds up to real money. The twin financing mechanisms of piling up debt and debasing the currency can only go on so long. We can already see the night at the end of the tunnel.
There is no better way to end this series of columns, at least for a while, than to recommend a book. The best book on where America now stands and where it is going is J. H. Elliott’s The Count-Duke of Olivares: The Statesman in an Age of Decline. Olivares was what we would now call the prime minister of Spain in much of the first half of the 17th century. His era saw Spain go from “the only superpower” to a downward plunge that lasted three centuries. Unusually, the more one looks at the details, the more the parallel holds. Then, as now, the root problem was the same: the court was controlled by interests that lived off the nation’s decay. Consider the book Scrooge’s recommendation for good Christmas reading.
Mr. Lind’s columns will be missed, as they have provided an interesting perspective and many insights over the past eight years or so. One may not agree with his nostalgia for Prussian monarchy, or his assumption that the State is not obsolete, and still appreciate his lucidity and honesty and deep knowledge of the matters involved. Regardless of one’s political orientation, or opinion of any wars, tactics, or strategies, his final point here I think is well taken… whatever else we do or do not do, if we do not get corruption out of Washington, money out of the political process… get those interests that live off of decay out of the court, the moneychangers out of the temple; we are doomed, at least as presently Constituted. Money is not speech, and is not defined as such in the Constitution. We can exclude all corporate and other interests from the political process and lobbying without violating their right to repair to the nearest streetcorner and start ranting. As it now stands we take a small commission on our own oppression and call that a bargain. It is, but not for us.
Posterity will remember and appreciate Mr. Lind and his theory more kindly than today’s talking heads do, of that I am certain.
Being able to read Lind’s columns has been one of the enduring pleasures of the past five years. They have been hard reading, and have helped to solidify some of my worst expectations, but the truth is it’s own reward, and Lind was truly rewarding.
If I picked a very remote location to “hook up my telegraph”, I’d call a local internet provider and ask about 4G. And if that’s not coming soon to your area, then there is no square foot in the North American continent that is not served by an 18″ satellite dish (ie Hughes, Wild Blue, et. al.)
I ask my grandchildren, “What do you call a guy who invents the best mousetrap in the world?” Answer, “Poor.”
“How do you get rich?” Answer, “Find somebody who has money, find out what they want, and get THAT for them (instead of what you think they need).”
But retirement (and job hunting) does not ensure abstinence from the internet. I’m retired, and my mission in life is to bedevil dishonest libs (other types of libs and conservatives, hopefully will enjoy my contributions).
Pity the poor guy who holds hands (with one hand) with the libs from Antiwar.com, and with the other hand, holds a briefcase full of goodies that Blackwater needs. LOL
May your wife still feed you after age 64, and may your grandchildren speak of you with an absence of snark.
It doesn’t make sense for me to react here, considering the fact Lind never works on a PC.
Anyway, I couldn’t resist a sincere thank you for an original thinker and wise man, Mr. Lind, we need more men like you, not less, please return someday soon.
Mr. Lind, your many fans and admirers will be counting the days until your return. I’ve greatly enjoyed your observations on warfare and have not always agreed with your conclusions, but they have made me appreciate the intrinsic qualities of war. From a drunk with possibility neo-con footsoldier deployed to both Iraq and Afghanistan, reading your columns has dropped the scales from my eyes to see the folly of our imperial pretensions. God Save Our Republic!
Maciano – your sarcasm is wasted, as it is built upon your lack of technical expertise.
Mr Lind said, “Once I am re-established, either with a new institution or in retirement, I intend to re-start the column. When that will be I do not know. It also depends on obtaining connection to a telegraph line, which is not available everywhere.”
I was informing him that everything from FAX, to smart refrigerators, to the home telephone can now be run over IP, which is available by 18″ satellite dish, at affordable rates, even where there are no landlines or cel phone towers.
And if you’re in a particularly remote area, have some solar panels sent in for electricity.
Hallmark of a (dishonest) LIBERAL – politically-motivated opinion that ignores the realities of science.