[Prost1]

My problem (since the posters preceding all have problems...joking!) is that we need vocabulary to help understand the problem.

By focusing on "generations" it helps to define constructs of military capability and tactics. There is nothing wrong with this.

So, I disagree with these writers who wish to engage in polemics just to earn a paycheck.

If I choose to define 4thGen as asymmetrical and then choose to define asymmetrical as terrorist tactics, how am I wrong? I chose the term and provided the definition of the term I chose.

All can discuss the meaning and concepts and solutions.

That is the purpose of presenting and defining 4th Gen Warfare! Argument, discussion, debate.

[gogogodzilla]

Assymtric warfare is the easiest warfare to eliminate.

This is true only if you are willing to fight on the same playing field as your enemy. The terrorist exploits our 'civilized' standards to gain an advantage. Without those standards, the terrorist loses that advantage.

IE:

Terrorists uses mosques as ammo dumps and headquarters. Our 'civilized' standards ensure that we cannot attack mosques. Thus the terrorist is safe.

Remove our 'civilized' standards... and we destroy the mosque at the time that the mosque is most in use. Thus the terrorists lose their ammo dump, their ammo, their headquarters, and most of their personnel and replacements.

We know where the terrorists are, in general. But our standards prevent us from destroying those places. Which is exactly why the terrorists hide there.