A self described "traditional right" critic of Gen. Dunford's says that
non-state actors are the real threat, and that we should seek alliance with any tyranny who will help us control them.
Russia has no troops in Mexico or Canada, nor is she considering sending arms to the Taliban, ISIS, Mexican drug cartels, or anyone else we are fighting. Just who is the threat to whom here? Most fundamentally–and I am going to write this in big letters–THE WORLD HAS CHANGED!
The main threat to the United States is not any other state. The main threat is spreading statelessness and the Fourth Generation elements that fill the resulting space. What the U.S. and the international sate system need is an alliance of all states against non-state forces. The two allies we need most, the only two strong enough to do us some good, are China and Russia. The only way Russia would be likely to become a threat to us is if the Russian state were to disintegrate. That was a real possibility under President Yeltsin. President Putin’s great achievement has been strengthening the Russian state. For that, we should thank him.
What about Iran, which has been assisting non-state actors to fight us in Afghanistan and, especially, in Iraq? Maybe our new Russian and Chinese friends can help pressure them to play nice? Not apparently:
We may be able to destroy most Iranian nuclear facilities. But we cannot destroy the knowledge Iran has, knowledge which would enable them to rebuild quickly. After such an attack, Iran would unquestionalbly move to build a bomb, something it is not doing now. And Iran would respond on the ground using allied Shiite militias to round up all the American troops in Iraq and probably attacking those in Afghanistan as well, with plenty of help from Afghans.
I suppose this leaves us with isolationism, and yet he seems very concerned about preparing for threats from non-state actors. If non-state actors like Mexican cartels are the real danger, shouldn't we deal harshly with states like Iran that empower those actors and use them as proxies?
6 comments:
I believe it is safe to discard this General's opinion. Mostly because he's living in cloud-coocoo-land if he believes that Iran is not currently pursuing a nuclear device. One does not need thousands and thousands of enrichment centrifuges to make peaceful nuclear power.
One does not need thousands and thousands of enrichment centrifuges to make weapons-grade uranium, either. Thousands and thousands just produce it faster.
One also gets weapons-grade fissionables out of properly designed nuclear reactors whose ostensible use is to generate mere electricity.
Eric Hines
Yes indeed. To whit, one gets weapons grade plutonium out of light water reactors of precisely the kind we're promising to build for Iran.
Too funny - when I read your (Grim's) part, I immediately thought of Lind, and sure enough the linked article is his. Lind has been in a tiff with the US military in general, and the USMC in particular, since his brief hey-day ended with formal acceptance of Manuever Warfare into USMC FMFs.
His views on 4th Gen warfare boil down to petty reactionary policy - support any nation state against any non-state actor. The more correct view, IMO, is the crime vs warfare viewpoint which Gen Dunford advocates.
Crime will never be eradicated and will remain a personal threat - but crime will not, of itself, destroy a nation. Terrorism and non-state actors are similar. Terrorism cannot be eliminated any more than crime can, and terrorism can kill you just as well as crime. They are a threat. They are not existential threats until another nation-state becomes involved.
I believe Dunsford is correct in his statements, and that in future only the name of the threat nation will change, but not the fact that it is a nation-state. We lose sight of the linkage between petty thugs (criminals/terrorists) and hostile nations at our own peril. Worse, when we get drawn into fighting the thugs, instead of the real power behind the thug, we end up with exceedingly expensive whack-a-mole marathons.
-KragCulloden
Non state actors like who, Democrats or Sherman?
Crime will never be eradicated and will remain a personal threat - but crime will not, of itself, destroy a nation. Terrorism and non-state actors are similar. Terrorism cannot be eliminated any more than crime can, and terrorism can kill you just as well as crime. They are a threat. They are not existential threats until another nation-state becomes involved.
That's where the idiots failed to account for Democrats and the Leftist alliance. Just as people don't expect the Spanish Inquisition.
Post a Comment