<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: israel israel israel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mindtangle.net/2006/07/18/israel-israel-israel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mindtangle.net/2006/07/18/israel-israel-israel/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:26:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: nagu</title>
		<link>http://mindtangle.net/2006/07/18/israel-israel-israel/comment-page-1/#comment-2520</link>
		<dc:creator>nagu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Jul 2006 07:34:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mindtangle.net/?p=234#comment-2520</guid>
		<description>&lt;p&gt;And here, my contribution to that thread...&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;hr /&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Sorry for getting meta, but Robb&#039;s writings on asymmetric warfare and 4GW (Fourth-Generation Warfare) are thought-inspiring stuff.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Here&#039;s his blog:
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;From the other side, here&#039;s a convincing criticism of the glorification of 4GW:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003457.html&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Robb&#039;s response, and I think the underlying point to all of this: &quot;I believe that global guerrillas will not collapse the West any more than the Internet collapsed Microsoft&#039;s monopoly. Their emergence will, however, &lt;em&gt;change&lt;/em&gt; things. Don&#039;t think Vietnam. Think Israel.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Every armchair strategist talks about playing for keeps, but I believe there is no such thing in the world we currently live in. No ideological enemy can be destroyed; even dominance is not a victory. If this is true, it&#039;s not an outright condemnation of military solutions to political/cultural/economic conflicts, but it greatly reduces the scope of military solutions that make sense for a state actor.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And here, my contribution to that thread&#8230;</p>

<hr />

<p>Sorry for getting meta, but Robb&#8217;s writings on asymmetric warfare and 4GW (Fourth-Generation Warfare) are thought-inspiring stuff.</p>

<p>Here&#8217;s his blog:
<a href="http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/" rel="nofollow">http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/</a></p>

<p>From the other side, here&#8217;s a convincing criticism of the glorification of 4GW:
<a href="http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003457.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003457.html</a></p>

<p>Robb&#8217;s response, and I think the underlying point to all of this: &#8220;I believe that global guerrillas will not collapse the West any more than the Internet collapsed Microsoft&#8217;s monopoly. Their emergence will, however, <em>change</em> things. Don&#8217;t think Vietnam. Think Israel.&#8221;</p>

<p>Every armchair strategist talks about playing for keeps, but I believe there is no such thing in the world we currently live in. No ideological enemy can be destroyed; even dominance is not a victory. If this is true, it&#8217;s not an outright condemnation of military solutions to political/cultural/economic conflicts, but it greatly reduces the scope of military solutions that make sense for a state actor.</p>]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
