GLOBAL WARRIORS

Global Guerrillas are warriors (among other things) and not soldiers. What is a warrior in this modern context? Ralph Peters attempts to answer that in The New Warrior Class. In this paper, he defined warriors as "erratic primitives of shifting allegiance, habituated to violence, with no stake in civil order." He describes the situation:

We have entered an age in which entire nations are subject to dispossession, starvation, rape, and murder on a scale approaching genocide--not at the hands of a conquering foreign power but under the guns of their neighbors. Paramilitary warriors--thugs whose talent for violence blossoms in civil war--defy legitimate governments and increasingly end up leading governments they have overturned. This is a new age of warlords, from Somalia to Myanmar/Burma, from Afghanistan to Yugoslavia.

Classification

Peters concludes that warriors now number in the millions globally and can be divided into four distinct categories:

• Underclass. A loser with little education, no earning power, and no future.
• Disrupted young males. Young men and boys drawn into the warrior milieu due to the disruption of normal paths of development (school, work, etc.).
• Believers. Men that fight due to strong belief (religious, patriotic, etc.) or those that have extreme suffered personal loss.
• Former military men. Former military men that have not been integrated back into society. They have no other skills except violence.

Central Paradox

Peters correctly points out the central paradox of warrior culture. These warriors continue conflict for their own gain -- the spoils of war and the continuation of a way of life. Perversely, the continuation of violence prevents society from delivering the benefits necessary to rehabilitate them.

The Modern Warrior

Peters' formulation works well as a starting point in our analysis. Warriors, as he describes them, are difficult to defeat because of the asymmetrical methods by which they fight war. It's classic fourth generation warfare -- dirty, nasty, and ultimately won or lost in the moral sphere.

However, as tough as the the 4GW warrior is, it fails to account for the extreme resilience and innovation we see today in global terrorism and guerrilla warfare. We are also fighting on many more levels that merely the moral one. This implies that something has been left out of this analysis. My conclusion is that it fails to appreciate how globalization has layered new skill sets on ancient mindsets. Warriors, in our current context, are not merely lazy and monosyllabic primitives as Peters implies. They are wired, educated, and globally mobile. They build complex supply chains, benefit from global money flows, and they invest shrewdly. In a nutshell, they are modern.

Additionally, they have stumbled into a decentralized system of coordination/learning, something that I call open source warfare, that has led to radical improvements in how they prosecute warfare. This has enabled:

• Systems disruption. The coordinated decimation of a state's infrastructure, markets, and social order. Iraq is a classic example.
• Strategic reach. Attacks from 9/11 to Bali to Madrid. To provoke or coerce global participants. Attacks that influence the flows of global resources (oil) and people (tourism and commerce).
• Participation in Black globalization. Economic dissonance caused by the traffic in drugs to people.

Comments

The past is not answers. The gift is invisible. The future that one will not be never.

To connect the way and for see the one that the polishing path.

You cannot win a war you do not fight

[textbook]

A warrior is a person habitually engaged in combat. Professional warriors are paid money for engaging in military campaigns and are soldiers when fighting on behalf of their own state or mercenaries when offering their services commercially and unrelated to their own nationality. The classification of somebody who is involved in acts of violence may be a matter of perspective, and there may be disagreement whether a given person is a hooligan, a gangster, a terrorist, a rebel, a freedom fighter, a mercenary or a soldier. A soldier is not necessarily a warrior. Although all soldiers get basic combat training, many soldiers serve in the rear in non-combat positions such as in office management, clerical, logistics, or research and development positions.

[Dan]

"They are in the game to win and are wired, educated, and globally mobile"

How does this go along with the strategy of the Iraqi insurgents, who are in the game to make us lose (to achieve state failure, not to win themselves)?

[John Robb]

Dan, it depends on what is meant by win. We assume that it means control of the state. As bin Laden said (paraphrase), "Why do you need a state?"

[ali]

Not sure if the idea of the warrior, with its baggage of honor codes, war craft and tradition is a good place to start on terrorism.

John Keegan has the modern regiment as an evolution of the warrior band but do modern terrorists have as much in common with warriors?

Recent profiles on AQ people reveal a technically educated well socialised opponent, a product of stable modernity not failed states; more of a gentleman amatuer than a habituated battlehardened pyschopath. Modern terrorists are principly political actors willing to kill to advance their aims. Warriors offer battle; effective terrorists provide little or no target to the enemy. They may exploit the romance of the warrior but they aren’t fighting to count coup or bathe a spear.

I entirely agree that this enemy is not a throwback to the primitive but a creature that thrives on the bleeding edge of globalization. We are perhaps seeing the development of a new kind of social orgainization facillitated by modern communication, a regiment that serves no state and requires little regimentation. No mess halls are needed in the age of the iCafe.

"The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue." - Chairman Mao Tse-Tung

Guerrillas are not warriors...

[Marcello]

"Why do you need a state?"

Someone might have asked the same question here towards the end of the XV century.As it happened for the lack of it we ended up kissing french, spanish and austrian boots for the next 400 years.That would have been a good enough answer, I believe.
Lack of a modern state organization would probably ensure that they remain a backward cesspool.
Now said backward cesspool may have become an intractable problem for modern state armed forces forces for a variety of reasons, so it may seem OK for Bin Laden & Co. However things change fast nowadays and such condition might not be permanent.Should the balance of power move in the other direction they will find themselves weak and ripe for conquest.

[Dan]

John,

Do you have a reference for that? I'm not doubting you, but I would love to read that in context.

Thank you

[John Robb]

It's in Michael Scheuer's book.

BTW, I think it is important to differentiate between the warriors we see in the Sudan today (Darfur) and what we see in Iraq. The major difference is the degree of modernity among the rank and file. They are similar in that both adhere to ancient loyalties and mindsets. Both are threats to the state.

RE: "Why do you need a state?"

According to Abed al-Tahawi, AQ's goal is to setup an caliphate state...

[John Robb]

To the IP filtered poster:

A Caliphate isn't a state. It is a decentralized feudal system. It is driven by allegiance, favor, and reputation. Don't assume a state in any form you would recognize.

John, you will have to bring that up with Abed...
-------------------------------------------
Abed al-Tahawi’s made the statement in brief remarks to reporters before the military court convened to hear the prosecution sum up its case in his trial. "Although they accuse them of being terrorists, the heroes Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab Zarqawi will come back to the scene soon to set up an Islamic caliphate state," he said.
-------------------------------------------

[m wilmensniprange findeer]

who do i contact for mercenarie work skilled in all fields [not musilim ] figgh against dictatorship countries ive said enought willing to go anywere preferably jungle you can call me range finder

[johan wolfer]

what is the purpose of war but to adquire profit or "freedom" not knowing that war by itself is giving up freedom, its a headless monster that slowly eats your ideals and turns you into a tool of rage. I'm not an idealist i like what i do, i disagree to be part of the sistem of war when we became the police of the world, because nobody else had the courage to say enough. but also i don't believe that imposing our way of life into others is giving them the respect they deserve.
i would fight a war for the right reasons to stop the blood sheed and give others the right to live and let live, in common understandning if that is posible.

[GYPSY]

ALL WARFARE IS TO BE FOUGHT BY WARRIORS-- WARRIORS CAN USE GUERILLA TACTICS..

HOWEVER, WAR SHOULD BE FOUGHT, GLOVES OFF NO HOLDS BARRED.. AND IS ONLY WORTH FIGHTING WHEN DONE CORRECTLY.. WITH THE BACKING OF THE STATE THEN AND ONLY THEN SHOULD 1 GO INTO BATTLE OTHERWISE YOU WILL HAVE 2 WARS TO FIGHT INSTEAD OF 1-- PEOPLE WILL BACK YOU IF YOU SHOW TRUE LEADERSHIP ABILITIES AND CALL A SPADE A SPADE.. POLITICIANS SHOULD STAY OFF THE FIELD OF BATTLE AND WE SHOULD LET OUR ARMIES DO WHAT THEY WERE TRAINED TO DO...
KILL

[John smith your american patriot]

Hello America this is John smith your american patriot

What the hell have you been sniffing GYPSY.
Did you go to Vietnam? Did you see some shit? Did Agent Orange fuck with your mind? Who do you want America to fight? Let me guess Lebanon well GYPSE Israel is in the wrong. And what do you mean call a spade a spade. And yes America's arny is trained to do one thing and that is to kill but do you have to be so crazy

P.S. By the way did you know GYPSE that Gypsies eat HEDGEHOGS!!! they wrap a poor little HEDGEHOG in clay put it in the oven and when they are done they break off the clay and out come all the needles. Gypsies say it tastes like chicken.

P.P.S. Have you eaten hedgehog GYPSY

[hagen]

Wrongs righted.
wrong.r@hotmail.com

[hagen]

permanent problem solutions.
wrong.r@hotmail.com
descretion assured.

[BOB AGLEDOR]

A true warrior is a man or woman trained both physically and mentally to erradicate wrong and evil wherever it lurks. With that said, the implication is that a "warrior" operates in a sphere of moral clarity and good judgement. Whether the decisions are his or hers to make. I believe that an individual cannot call themselves a warrior. That is an annointing that can be bestowed by God and entities such as the church, state, and global institutions; again in observance of moral laws. It is true that even robots and creatures in the wild can be trained in combat tactics. However, the making of a warrior invokes an element of intelligent design. Not merely intelligence per say. A warrior in the eyes of alah can do no wrong. He or she knows when, what and how to act and react to any and all instruments and devices of ill. Especially the acts contrarary to the commandments of GOD and man's ability to reach a higher moral and physical plateau.