THE FIFTH GENERATION WARFARE
As the US analysts love to initiate new terms in matter of warfare, I, for once, will engender and indulge as easily and with as much cynicism and sarcasm a new kind of warfare term. The fifth generation warfare.
The commoners that we are, pulled down in the satisfaction of our desires and material assets are comforted by our biased media and Obama's smile that all the wars conducted so far were for a noble cause and the dead are only elected targets. In the pretense of false flag pavilion, humanitarian involvement we are marching with our stealth drones, our sarin-laden rockets, our nano/laser coil weapons to the annihilation of their world and consequently of the world.
Yes, we invaded Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria... Yes, we are destabilizing countries in extenso. Lebanon, Somalia, China (we encouraged Muslim Uighur protests, bombed a station in Yunnan this March 1st), Russia (we finance the arming of pro Europe protests in Kiev...)... just to cite a few. If it is the result of a calculated move on Brzezinski's Grand chessboard or/and the consequence of the fourth generation warfare (psychological warfare with media manipulation, terrorism...), a new era in resistance is born from the ashes of Syria. I am not referring to the perennial resistance gangrening continents like southern America, Africa and parts of Asia but to a specific resistance. As our military bubblehead strategi spent our stipend (I'm not that sure since it vanishes in the interest of the debt) defining the forth generation warfare as complex and long term, with the same arrogance and without taxpayer's input, I will characterize the fifth generation warfare as the blitzkrieg generation (punctual and brief).
Because the concept is new. Because the winner is not the anticipated victor. Because the West loses against the rest of the world. The only reality on the international scene is the presence of two competitive dynamics, the West and the rest of the world. Where the West retains the international institutions acting exclusively upon its orders and interests, the rest of the world is building its defense. Why is it new? Because of national and internal factors proper to the aggressed. Because of a domestic military strength, organization and efficiency. Because of popular support. Because of an independent government devoid of American intelligence ties. Because of a common conscience insurgency. Because of a preponderant national sovereignty. Because of its "enemy" status. The fifth generation warfare has a new face.
Could it be that Syria has at its head a young president with new aspirations for his country? Are his words, a dictator's? "This is what I meant when I said that in this age we need to unify. This doesn’t mean becoming a single state in the same way that old states existed in the past, in large extended empires. Today we can unify through our interests at least. For instance, we can build railways, different forms of land transport, gas, oil, electricity, all forms of energy, hence creating networks between our countries in this extremely strategic region of the world which lies between the five seas. This in itself will bring a lot of investment into the region, creating a great deal of prosperity and making these states and their peoples strong enough to face any foreign intervention." Which hegemonist won't be scared with such ambition? Could it be that as a thinking individual, he steps aside conformity? He refuses to obey our orders like our puppets, Jordan, Israel or Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey... Could it be that all middle eastern "failing democracy" can't stand the crass death of being eaten alive (penchant for the heart) by the Muslim Brotherhood, our symbol and sole alternative to freedom? If it is not an easy way to serfdom and uniformity, what is it? Which concept gather both "ideals"?
The new order. I didn't believe it at the beginning, but I'm forced to acknowledge that any economical, financial, social, political, military, international move tends to its reality. It is not the conspiracy theorist that invented this term, it came from our leaders' mouths, the same ones that are impoverishing the people to the benefit of the elite. Is it a coincidence that the West is reducing individuality/sovereignty to collectivism? After all under the Russian or Chinese collectivism the people were working for their government with little retribution and therefore a little freedom margin if ever one. Their propaganda sold happiness, their reality was pseudo self-sufficiency and servitude to the apparatchiks. Is it a coincidence that we are pushing Europe to its demise, as we are doing with the US, with its unique currency, with its unique economical, political, military policies whereas exist so many cultural faces and backgrounds? Is it a coincidence that when the people of Europe are crying out/for their individualism, we are pushing toward its enlargement? Is it a coincidence that while enlarging (to poorer countries) Europe, the US is increasing its military presence on the European continent via NATO? Is it a coincidence when the people of Europe versus their governments reject Europe and its neoliberal fantasies, we are still hammering down the nail? Is it a coincidence that as we are pushing toward collectivism ( a communist idea, very convenient isn't it), the rest of the world sniffing imminent danger take refuge in powerful organizations to counteract our decisions in order to maintain their individuality? Is it a coincidence that 5 African countries solidified their bonds for common interests? Is it a coincidence that Switzerland is rethinking its military branch after a lifetime of non militarization only because the US just started meddling in their national affairs (14 Swiss banks are under investigation, who among us didn't know that American accounts were hidden in Swiss banks? In French it is called "un secret de Polichinelle". Is it a coincidence that the French reached their highest level of abstention in their elections opposing clearly to its "liberal socialism", an euphemism for French liberalism?
Southern America, Asia, soon Africa have never felt so empowered than today. Is it because Russia is gaining terrain on the diplomatic field appearing and appealing to countries such as Syria as a protective shield? Is it because China is progressing diplomatically on the African soil? Can we deny this fact? Both are opposing our moves in their regions. At least, can we agree upon the fact that if Syria didn't benefit from China's and Russia's vetoes, it would not exemplify today resistance against the West worldwide? It would be foolish to negate that agreements obey to both parties' interests. It would also be foolish to discard this reality.
And, what is the reality? In the past, the Vietnam war taught us that we are vincible. Russia during the cold war taught us Mutual Assured Destruction. Today, Syria's victory taught us a new generation of warfare, a warfare that unites the people, a warfare that unites the same world partition that existed after the Second World War, the rest of the world against the West. The FIFTH GENERATION WARFARE is the symbiosis between the government and the people. Decoded, it means, if you are with us government, we the people are with you (Syria is the paradigm), if you are not, whatever will be (Egypt speaks for itself). It is the reality. The fifth generation warfare, the new paradigm, is based upon the ability for the under dog to resistance and to its proclivity to elect the right allies. Because when we ponder upon what is their common denominator? They represent a danger to the US hegemony is the ONLY answer that comes to mind.
No comments yet.