Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fourth Generation War In the Sudan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 09:13 PM
Original message
Fourth Generation War In the Sudan
The international goo-goos (Tammany Hall?s old
name for the "good government" types) need their
humanitarian crise du jour, and the Sudan currently
fills the bill. The usual celebrities are wringing their
hands and we are all supposed to care, deeply. The
realist replies, "Yeah, that?s life in the global village,"
but realism is out of fashion these days. Sense, it
seems, has been defeated by sensibility.


---

"Over and over, they (the refugees) tell the same story.
First airplanes and helicopters came and bombed their
villages. Then gun-and-sword-wielding militiamen
came galloping in on horseback and camelback -
burning, looting, raping and pillaging.

"Tens of thousands have made the journey, forced on a
desperate flight through the desert by Arab herders bent
on chasing their African farming neighbors from the
vast western region (Darfur), the size of Iraq."

---

We see here in this remarkable vignette one of the
most important, most powerful and also most
unremarked features of our age: the past is all
coming back. As modernity crumbles, all ancient
ways and causes of war return, defining a Fourth
Generation that is also a vast Minus One Generation.
I have said from the outset that the Fourth
Generation marks the end of modern war and the
modern age, and nowhere do we see that more clearly
than in places like the Sudan (and there are more and
more such places).

Those who have eyes, let them see.


antiWar.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-25-04 10:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Why the @#$% are you posting William Lind's bullshit?

William Lind
Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism
Free Congress Foundation

This wingnut SOB claims, of the Janjaweed: "It is safe to say that their ties to the government of the Sudan are tenuous."

Darfur Documents Confirm Government Policy of Militia Support
A Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper, July 20, 2004
<snip>
Human Rights Watch has obtained copies of Sudanese government documents that describe an official policy of support to the Janjaweed militia.11 These documents, which originate from the offices of the civilian administration in Darfur, implicate government officials ranging a deputy minister from the central government to the highest levels of the Darfur civilian administrationthe governor or walito provincial commissioners and local officials in a policy of support to the Janjaweed. The documents illustrate the involvement, at the highest levels, of the state bureaucracy in the recruitment and arming of militia and the authorization of their activities that have resulted in crimes against humanity and war crimes.
<snip>
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/19/darfur9096.htm


Sudan: New Darfur Documents
Ties Between Government and Janjaweed Militias Confirmed

<snip>
In a series of official Arabic-language documents from government authorities in North and South Darfur dating from February and March 2004, officials call for recruitment and military support, including provisions and ammunition to be delivered to known Janjaweed militia leaders, camps and loyalist tribes.

A particularly damning February directive orders all security units in the area to tolerate the activities of known Janjaweed leader Musa Hilal in North Darfur. The document highlights the importance of non-interference so as not to question their authority and authorizes security units in a North Darfur province to overlook minor offenses by the fighters against civilians who are suspected members of the rebellion.

Another document calls for a plan for resettlement operations of nomads in places from which the outlaws withdrew. This, along with recent government statements that displaced persons will be settled in 18 settlements rather than in their original villages, raises concerns that the ethnic cleansing that has occurred will be consolidated and that people will be unable to return to their villages and lands.
<snip>

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/07/20/darfur9095.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 12:03 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Tsk. I do hope I have not raised your blood pressure too much. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. HRW has more credibility. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 12:37 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Good for them. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. More than that: ethical decision-making requires getting the facts right.

Rightwinger Lind is, of course, entitled to his isolationism -- but accurate information being available, it is inexcusable for him to get major facts wrong. Lind's not even a progressive Republican: he seems to offer, as worldview, only some horrid fatalism about war, based on intellectually lazy appeals to 'ancient tribal enmity' stereotypes which, of course, cannot be the basis of usable insights.

So what IS the point of posting this stuff?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Just doing my best to spread false, right-wing, unethical ideas.
Have a nice day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Mainstreaming Hate
A key ally of Christian right heavyweight Paul Weyrich addresses a major Holocaust denial conference

Washington William Lind has long been a point man for cultural conservatism, a key player in the world of right-wing politicians, and, in recent years, the head of the Free Congress Foundation's Center for Cultural Conservatism.

As a close friend of arch-conservative strategist Paul Weyrich, who started the Free Congress Foundation in 1978, Lind has developed into an important voice on the Christian right.

He also seems to be cultivating friends in some remarkable places. This June 15, at a major Holocaust denial conference put on by veteran anti-Semite Willis Carto in Washington, D.C., Lind gave a well-received speech before some 120 "historical revisionists," conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis and other anti-Semites, in which he identified a small group of people who he said had poisoned American culture. On this point, Lind made a powerful connection with his listeners.

"These guys," he explained, "were all Jewish."
<snip>

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?...


Reframing the Enemy
'Cultural Marxism,' a conspiracy theory with an anti-Semitic twist, is being pushed by much of the American right
By Bill Berkowitz

<snip>
But it may be William Lind, who has long worked at the Free Congress Foundation that his ally Paul Weyrich founded, who has done the most to define the enemies who make up the so-called "cultural Marxists." Ultimately, this enemy has come to embody a whole host of Lind's bte noires feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalists, sex educators, environmentalists, immigrants, black nationalists, the ACLU and the hated Frankfurt School philosophers. In July 1998, Lind told a conference of the right-wing watchdog group Accuracy in Academia that political correctness and cultural Marxism were "totalitarian ideologies" that were turning American campuses into "small ivy-covered North Koreas, where the student or faculty member who dares to cross any of the lines set up by the gender feminist or the homosexual-rights activists, or the local black or Hispanic group, or any of the other sainted 'victims' groups that revolves around, quickly find themselves in judicial trouble."
<snip>
At the same time, Weyrich has had a "habit of flirting with racists and anti-Semites that dates back to his early involvement with George Wallace's America Independent Party," according to New York Observer columnist Joe Conason. As one example, Conason cites a 2001 Easter E-mail sent by Weyrich to thousands of his supporters declaring that "Christ was crucified by the Jews."
<snip>

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?...


Bill Berkowitz
WorkingForChange
09.22.03
A mighty Lind
Free Congress Foundation culture warrior leads charge against 'totalitarian ideology' of political correctness

<snip>
Where most Americans might trace the origins of "political correctness" to liberals on college campuses or the media, Lind blames the Jews. In June 2002, speaking before the Third International Conference on Authentic History and the First Amendment sponsored by the anti-Semitic journal, the Barnes Review, Lind told his audience of Holocaust deniers that "political correctness" was really "cultural Marxism" and was developed by a cabal of twentieth-century German philosophers -- all of whom were Jewish. "They were all Jews and they were all Marxists," he said.
<snip>

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=1565...


Right Wing Organizations
Free Congress Research and Education Foundation
<snip>
President/Founder: Paul Weyrich
<snip>
Weyrich helped draft Rev. Jerry Falwell to head the Moral Majority, and founded the Heritage Foundation. After less than a year at the Heritage Foundation, Weyrich went on to establish the Free Congress Foundation (FCF). During the early 1980s, the foundation had a reputation as being a pacesetter for Religious Right politics, in part because of the coalitions that operated under the group's umbrella project, Coalitions for America. These coalitions cooperated to draft legislation, plan media strategies, and exchange ideas and research.
<snip>
The Center for Cultural Conservatism is chiefly concerned with building conservative constitutions and defunding any institutions that dont conform to a narrow belief system.
<snip>
Quotes from Free Congress Foundation:
<snip>
The purpose of the ideology known commonly as "multiculturalism" is to destroy America. In the 21st-century world of fourth-generation warfare, it is likely to succeed. To understand why we first must understand both phenomena While many average Americans recognize American Muslims as a dangerous fifth column, the multiculturalist elite demands a tolerance of diversity that Islam itself does not know. A Republican administration invites mullahs to the White House to celebrate Islamic holidays. That multiculturalism preaches the suicide of the West is no surprise to those who know its historic origins. --Multiculturalism Reigns Over the West, by William Lind, Insight Magazine, 12/31/01

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4314
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gottaB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. that explains a lot
thanks for the research, s4p
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I'm really not much interested in his social theories.
He does seem to be acceptable to Harpers, antiwar.com, and
other sources I am fond of, and he has a lot on military.com
(see below) which I find a useful site. He does seem to be a
buddy of Weyrich as you say. If I understand what I've read
here correctly he has anxieties about both Muslims and Jews.
The Weyrich book is Muslim bashing and you have some anti-semitic
quotes. So maybe he's just a xenophobe or a Xtian fundy. But,
frankly, I don't care. His military ideas are interesting, and
that is what I pay attention to, I've known he was a conservative
as long as I've known about him, I often read proscribed writers,
I'm just a rebel I guess. Genghiz Khan was not very nice either,
but he knew how to run an army.

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Lind_Index,0...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. His social ideas are inseparable from his military theorizing:
Lind, as a rightwinger, has for years tirelessly promoted the idea that progressivism is a clever Trojan horse designed to destroy America and that the rightwing's beloved "culture wars" are destined to become real military conflicts on the ground, here, in the United States.

His military lectures and writings frequently include propaganda intended to foster xenophobia and hostility to "multiculturalism". His message is softened or hardened, depending on the venue, which (I must admit) sometimes makes him sound normal and reasonable.

But this is a standard rightwing organizing tactic, and beneath the veneer resides an intolerance, indistinguishable from that of Coulter and like extremists, who also obtain mainstream press coverage.

As you correctly point out, of course, none of that is reason to avoid reading Lind, and more power to anyone (I'd add) who can wade through Lind's worst bilge, at least to keep an eye on him.

I must wonder, though, how insightful his military remarks can really be: in the article at the top of this thread, for example, Lind reports (accurately) about helicopter assaults invariably preceeding janjaweed attacks, but also blithely asserts that there is no relation between the government and the militias, as if unaware of the logical contradiction within his own text.

It seems clear to me that the article at hand has less to do with Sudanese warfare than with the promotion of Lind's underlying thesis that anyone concerned about the slaughter of foreign tribes is a wimpy "goo goo" multiculturalist, undermining the security of the United States -- a view I consider offensive.


Multiculturalism Reigns Over the West by William S. Lind
The purpose of the ideology known commonly as "multiculturalism" is to destroy America. In the 21st century world of fourth-generation warfare, it is likely to succeed. To understand why, we first must understand both phenomena.
<snip>
http://www.grecoreport.com/multiculturalism_reigns_over...


Harvard University
John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies
On American Soil: The Widening Gap between the U.S. Military and U.S. Society
By Thomas E. Ricks
Project on U.S. Post Cold-War Civil-Military Relations May 1996

<snip>
More prominently, in a December 1994 article in the Marine Corps Gazette, William S. Lind, a military analyst who has been influential on the doctrinal thinking of the post-Cold War Marines, wrote with two Marine reservists that American culture is "collapsing":

Starting in the mid-1960's, we have thrown away the values, morals, and standards that define traditional Western culture. In part, this has been driven by cultural radicals, people who hate our Judeo-Christian culture. Dominant in the elite, especially in the universities, the media and the entertainment industries (now the most powerful force in our culture and a source of endless degradation), the cultural radicals have successfully pushed an agenda of moral relativism, militant secularism, and sexual and social `liberation.' This agenda has slowly codified into a new ideology, usually known as `multiculturalism' or `political correctness,' that is in essence Marxism translated from economic into social and cultural terms.44

There is little remarkable about that paragraph, which reads like standard right-wing American rhetoric of the `90's, not all that different from Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan on a prolix day. Its significance lies in the conclusion that Mr. Lind and his co-authors draw from their analysis: "The point is not merely that America's Armed Forces will find themselves facing non-nation-state conflicts and forces overseas. The point is that the same conflicts are coming here." So, they conclude, "The next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil."
<snip>

http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/olin/publications/workingp...


Fourth Generation Warfare: Is It Coming Live To A Theatre Near You?
By Paul M. Weyrich December 17, 2002

<snip>
Lind and his co-authors advanced the thesis that there would be a shift from warfare being fought by nation-states to ones in which our primary antagonists were likely to be religions, interest groups, or tribes fighting cause-oriented warfare. They wrote in the article that the threat to our country was likely to come from "non-Western cultural traditions, such as Islamic or Asiatic traditionsThe fact that some non-Western areas, such as the Islamic world, are not strong in technology may lead them to develop a fourth generation through ideas rather than technology."
<snip>
The idea behind Fourth Generation warfare is to promote the collapse of the targeted society from within, and we have every reason to worry that our own nation's multiculturalism will blind us to the real challenge that confronts us.
<snip>

http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2002/021217PW....


Understanding Fourth Generation War by William S. Lind
<snip>
Nor is Fourth Generation warfare merely something we import, as we did on 9/11. At its core lies a universal crisis of legitimacy of the state, and that crisis means many countries will evolve Fourth Generation war on their soil. America, with a closed political system (regardless of which party wins, the Establishment remains in power and nothing really changes) and a poisonous ideology of "multiculturalism," is a prime candidate for the home-grown variety of Fourth Generation war which is by far the most dangerous kind.
<snip>
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind3b.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I find I have no trouble keeping them separate.
But perhaps it is a problem for you. His ideas and related ones
can be found in a variety of contexts, some quite liberal. I suggest
Gwynne Dyer in "War" and Johathan Schell in "The Unconquerable World"
as two others. I can dig up others, but this it tedious. I don't
usually expect to have people attempt to censor my interests here.
You have no standing to tell me what I may post or what I may have
interests in. Bobby Fischer is a raging anti-semite, but I still
would read what he has to say about chess.

I have long standing interests in the areas of state legitimacy and
the declining utility of warfare as a tool of state policy, and Mr.
Lind has interesting ideas in those areas. I just ignore the other
drivel, but perhaps your are fearful he may infect some of the
weaker minds here or something. Frankly, I find the Neocons much
more dangerous than such as Mr. Lind.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. You must be seeing something I don't, because this material ...

(as I view it) involves critical inaccuracy/dishonesty (cf #1) and appears only to push an vicious anti-humanitarian agenda (cf #5 and #10).

Of course, since I enjoyed some of the Frankfurt School philosophers, I'm strongly prejudiced against this jerk, who's tried to build his own reputation by preaching extremist sermons to the effect that people like me are trying to undermine the country. When people babble crap like that, I'm disinclined to quote them under any circumstances.

I'll peek at the Dyer and Schell. But I really doubt they owe any intellectual debt to Lind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-04 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. I expect that I do.
Edited on Mon Jul-26-04 11:19 PM by bemildred
Neither Dyer or Schell owes Lind anything, rather the other way
I would think, or all beholden to various third parties; although
Lind has added his own bits, which I find interesting.

I had not delved into his conservative roots other than to
notice that he is of the old school, not the neocon variety,
since I have no interest in any of that. Now that I do, he seems
a bit more of a loose cannon in that area than I had thought before.
But then, it must be said that the military is conservative by nature
anywhere you go, and often not broadly educated. I used to know
plenty of dittoheads who were otherwise decent enough human beings,
however much I disagreed with them about politics.

I expect the Frankfurt School will survive Mr. Lind's "attacks"
rather well, he is out of his league there.

Edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Oct 24th 2014, 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC