They and their cohort already have.

Here are the definitions of the four generations of warfare:
“First-generation warfare refers to battles fought with massed manpower, using line and column tactics with uniformed soldiers governed by the state.
Second-generation warfare is the tactics used after the invention of the rifled musket and breech-loading weapons and continuing through the development of the machine gun and indirect fire. The term second generation warfare was created by the U.S. military in 1989.
Third-generation warfare focuses on using speed and surprise to bypass the enemy’s lines and collapse their forces from the rear. Essentially, this was the end of linear warfare on a tactical level, with units seeking not simply to meet each other face to face but to outmaneuver each other to gain the greatest advantage. (Desert Storm and OIF)
The concept of fourth-generation warfare is characterized by a return to decentralized forms of warfare, blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians due to nation states’ loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces, returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times.”

4GW is adopted by smaller, weaker forces as a way of fighting larger, more powerful enemies. It is basically a combination of guerilla warfare, psychological warfare, political warfare, hostage taking, terrorist attacks, and any other tactic that can be use to harass a larger, clumsier foe. The end game is to wear down the larger foe, much as a pack of wolves takes down an elk or moose.

Following strict rules of engagement as directed by the lawyers is one of the ways a super power like the U.S. hampers its efforts to deal with 4GW. Strict rules of engagement and questioning the basis of defending ourselves against guerillas and terrorists with military force has been the primary way the anti-war lawyers and bureaucrats have undermined our tactics and will to resist.

The minute OIF began with aerial “shock and awe” we heard the question of collateral damage/casualties raised as an objection to our use of airpower. Even as Iraq and Saddam had a full range of anti-aircraft weapons and first rate jet interceptors (admittedly flown by second rate pilots), the objections were raised as if Iraq was totally defenseless. And the objections were raised in spite of the fact that our bombing accuracy is light years ahead of where it was even in Vietnam. We can destroy targets with far fewer collateral casualties than anyone in the world. No one ever asks these traitors what Saddam would have done had the situation been reversed. It would have been no quarter, no mercy shown, that’s what.

Warfare in the desert is especially advantageous to those with airpower. Unlike in Vietnam, it is very difficult to hide, and with all our air assets, we should be able to virtually stop all traffic on desert roads. Stopping/slowing the movement of arms, ammo, food, fuel, and water is the way wars are won. ISIS, which is acting like a normal military force, should have been bombed back into the desert by now. But the anti-war lawfare believers have put the brakes on that.

Is it really necessary to know what previous flawed models were based around to understand how the current model works?

How would you get one if all your leadership comes from these professors like Ayers? They use mind control to prevent even thinking up solutions.

That’s how they prevent “us” from “executing” a sound strategy. If you cannot even conceive of what freedom means for human rights, then you cannot support freedom. It’s pretty good for a control mechanism.

Democrats used to use the whip and chains to stop education of slaves, to beat them up when they disobey, and to breed them using eugenic theories and by separating the family members, selling them off. Now they don’t have to do that in Slavery 3.0, they have the slaves think they are free and they are shackled by their own mind and heart.

They’re useful to our competitors and not harmless to us because they’re not “idiots”.

They’re competing.

Their “assumption of moral superiority” is merely the dominance asserted by a competitor which is effected via victory/defeat.

The way to render them harmless is to defeat them head-on in honest competition in the narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game. As always, the activist game is the only social cultural/political game there is.

There’s no question that we have treasonous professors, but they cannot prevent us from executing a sound strategy assuming we actually have one. Mostly we don’t.

G6loq is as of now a victim of a sham!
Victim!

The solution is obvious enough.

The author’s thesis is not a trademarked invention that only he is allowed to expound on. Viral ideas multiply and evolve independently of their originating source.

If this particular author and parts of his work are flawed yet other parts of his work – such as you emphasize – are vitally important and fundamentally sound, then the obvious solution is for other authors to appropriate (or even expropriate) the vitally important and fundamentally sound parts redesigned, repackaged, and virally projected under different authorship and scholarship .