Doakes Sunday: Fourth Generation Nation

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The American Revolutionaries wore brown clothes and hid behind trees and rocks to shoot at British soldiers wearing red jackets marching in straight lines.  This was a violation of the “rules of war” of that time period. The familiar Geneva Convention “rules of war” were crafted after World War I to protect draftees compelled to fight for nation-states. Modern military theorists talk of 4th Generation Warfare in which large formations of men and machines are useless against small, agile teams of mobile warriors, like trying to kill a swarm of mosquitoes with a sledge hammer.
Iraq War I, with Stormin’ Norman’s giant lines of tanks encircling armies in Kuwait, was 3rd Generation Warfare, as was much of Iraq War II.  Some parts of America’s military have been learning to fight 4th Generation Warfare, notably the SEALs who fought in Afghanistan.  But they’re still America’s warriors, they serve the nation of the United States.
But what is the United States?  A geographical location?  A shared belief?  A place where groups struggle against each other: rich against poor, Black against White?  Barack Obama seems intent on transforming the United States into something different from what it was then Bush The Elder was President.  What if President Obama is ahead of his time?  What if nation-states are obsolete?  What if the United States is obsolete?  Nations arose out of tribes, what comes after nations?  Maybe by transforming the United States into a collection of factions contesting against each other, he’s moving us toward 4th Generation Society.
Question is:  would that be a good thing?
Joe Doakes

Good for whom?

8 thoughts on “Doakes Sunday: Fourth Generation Nation

  1. Joe Doakes wrote:
    “What if nation-states are obsolete?”
    The current idea of a nation state dates to the Napoleanic era. Nationalism itself goes back (maybe) to the 14th century. That is the era when people began to identify with people who spoke their language rather than a dynasty.
    One of the more interesting ideas expressed by Paul Johnson in Modern Times is that the natural form of high level political organisation is not the nation-state, but the polyglot empire. Johnson argument is interesting; he says that the idea that nations should replace empires was embraced after WWI. Politicians and statesmen thought that the heart of conflict was frustrated nationalism. By grouping people into territories with people who spoke the same language (and presumably shared a common history and culture), large scale wars would never break out.

  2. Dissolution of a nation state can only lead to despotism. Evil exists, and it is much easier to take over a weak nation than a strong one. There is no utopia, Winston. Kumbaya moment does not exist.

  3. Tell me, JPA. Is America the same country you were born into? Is self determination still held as a precious freedom by your neighbors? Do you feel you have freedom of conscience?

    What makes a strong nation? Is it a mighty military, or a collection of people with shared history, tradition, morality and vision?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.