Do people know that if an alcohol addict goes cold turkey, they suffer from a real chance of death by withdrawal?
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/withdrawal/a/aa000125a.htm

I’m not writing to to recomend that anyone swear off the booze. I’ll be happy to prove this over a beer at my favorite bar.

I’ve worked helping those who are addicted to drugs, and it’s my own opinion that society always has individuals who seek escape and relief from stress by using drugs (and obviously I include alcohol as a drug). That this number will remain constant, no matter which drug is the one chosen by the abuser.

Ironically, the vast majority of those in prison are there for using marijuanna, which is not even physically addicitive.

For those who think the past was an ideal time, let them ponder that all drugs were legal up until the 20th century.
http://thedea.org/prohibhistory.html

Going to war with human nature is not exactly a 4GW affair, or if it is, it’s one of choice. Treating a disease as a crimial act, and even worse a conspiricy, is not rational. One must keep in mind that there would be no drug dealers if there were no drug addicts.

Dave

Why not go all the way and call it “4th gen ramsbottle”. Still nobody will understand, but at least this will save listeners from the confusion of trying understanding why these things (i.e., crime) are “war.”

The conceptual basis of 4GW has been ripped from van Creveld’s writings, without regard for the distinction he draws between the broad class of non-Trin conflicts and war (the latter being a subset of the former). The need for clarifying these definitions has grown clearer with the muliplication of war’s generations (5th gen, xth gen) and criticism (quite valid) of 4GW as a hall of mirrors.

This was made even clearer in Chet Richards’ recent book “If We Can Keep It”, explaining how many forms of non-Trin conflict (although he does not use van C’s term) are not war, either conceptually or operationally (i.e., treating them like war does not work well).

I will post more on this tomorrow at http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/ .

That’s pretty much why I bother to read all this. I’m concerned about the societies currently protected by states, and whether they can weather the decline of the nation-state.

In my opinion, Lind is lucky to have you folks thinking about these problems, but the majority of thinkers (in this cozy corner of the web) seem to be firmly set in military ways of thinking. I don’t know this for a fact, but Hammes, Fabius, and Richards all seem to be military vets.

I think the USA needs a guy like Lind cooperating with multiple all-star teams. Lind already has an all-star team of military thinkers — that angle is covered. Now there needs to be an all-star team of civilian law enforcers who are not military. Possibly a few civil servants, like IRS accountants, could contribute to this.

Finally, there needs to be an all-star team of sociocultural experts who are non-military and non-law-enforcement. Juan Cole might be a nucleus for this kind of group.

You can compare this tripartite division to Clausewitz’s army/government/people or to the medieval knight/peasant/priest trinity.