Posted on 02/15/2013 10:09:54 AM PST by Oldpuppymax
“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.” This is what military affairs expert William S. Lind calls the heart of his theory of the Fourth Generation of Modern Warfare (4GW). And there can be no better example of a “primary loyalty” than the right to keep and bear arms. (1)
The days of the massive, invulnerable armies of the nation-state winning contests with lesser opponents at the drop of a hat are over. Consider the fact that the most powerful military in the world was unable to roundly defeat the rag-tag forces of Afghanistan and Iraq as wars which should have taken a matter of weeks have stretched into years.
“Fourth Generation Warfare is based on dispersion and communications that remove the battle front entirely. Attackers rely on...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
IF the left is capable of learning anything from the Christopher Dorner example it should be that several million American gun owners and freedom lovers acting independently or in small groups and dedicated to the defense of their own liberty would constitute a force with which neither the nation’s police nor even its military could contend. And untold numbers of those working to overthrow the Constitution would lose their lives.
I'd be inclined to agree if those freedom lovers were working in concert. But apart from that, there seems to be more of a likelihood that it will just increase the number of people who die, holed up in the basement of a burning house surrounded by a SWAT team. I'm no fan of the murderer Dorner, or say, the fanatic, David Koresh, but the outcome of Waco seems to be gaining popularity with law enforcement.
Been trying to explain this to my wife.
100 million gun owners.
25% compliance with any confiscation effort.
Leaves 75 million armed.
With only 20% of those willing to fight initially, those 15 million will inspire the remaining 60 million.
Law enforcement and military would be split 50/50.
This is why liberals will take the long road to disarmament.
not me.....evil is evil....
The challenges of putting down a guerilla insurgency predate Iraq and Afghanistan. The best case study to consider is actually the one where Robert E. Lee doesn’t surrender the Army of Northern Virginia and instead orders them to disperse and take to the hills to continue the War ... with Joe Johnston following suit.
Had that happened, we’d still be fighting today. Lots of people play up Lincoln and to a lesser degree Grant as the savior(s) of the Union ... when just as strong a case can be made for Lee.
Good points.
But don’t forget that the act of disarmenment also effects the psychology of those disarmed. Not just the ability to resist, but the willingness to resist.
Armed men know they retain a level of control over their lives. As they say, “The worst they can do is to kill me, but they will never enslave me.”
The disarmed don’t have that option. They can be enslaved AND killed and, ultimately, they know it. It affects how they react to all other infringements in their lives.
ping regarding discussion of hero worship of Dorner, even with the wink an nod ‘of course he was wrong’ while going gaga over what he did.
With both Dorner and Waco, the cops/feds only had to contend with bullets coming from in front of them.
Yep. Happily, their ranks have thinned considerably in the last 4 years:)
This article is remarkably poorly written. Of course the US military could easily overcome the forces of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they did. What they couldn’t do is indefinitely occupy and easily prop up puppet governments. This is so because insurgents can trade their lives for out money. Each piece of equipment and each USican life Costa us loads, and at some point it stops being worth it. Similarly, they also trade lives for negative MSM coverage back home, which more than the cost is what lost us Vietnam.
However, this was always so. How silly for this article to pretend differently. The big difference between now and before is that rich countries don’t fight eachother anymore, so all wars have the flavor of colonial wars. If we went to war with China—forgetting nukes for a second—it’d be like WWII again. The reason the big guys don’t fight anymore, I think, is nukes. God bless the prospect of horrible destruction.
The Civil War was carried on by other means, according to a certain interpretation of Jesse James, the KKK, moonshiners versus revenoors, etc.
After that, the tide will turn rapidly.
Yes, but never to a level approaching that of even a small but robust insurgency.
I wouldn’t call it going gaga, but rather sober reflection and assessment.
This has nothing to do with Dorner. If authorities were after the devil himself I wouldn’t allow them more license than for the next suspect. You trivialize wrongs done by the cops by framing it as us worshiping the irrelevant Dorner.
And monkeys may fly out of my butt.
I believe that Lee was trying to get Britain to intervene, to come in on his side. Had he done what you suggest, it would have been very different, wouldn’t it?
I don’t know how that would have worked with Sherman though.
This article, despite the headline, had nothing good to say about Dorner. It wasn’t really even about that guy. It was about how unprepared and unable this country is going to be to fight an asymmetrical civil war should it try to confiscate firearms and shred the second amendment.
The article suggests that a lot of people are a lot more loyal to the second amendment and the Constitution than they are to the government itself.
You don’t understand “collateral damage.” The ambushing and killing was not collateral. It was deliberate murder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.