The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century

Parameters, Autumn, 2005 by Richard Halloran

The Sling and the Stone: On War in the 21st Century. By Thomas X. Hammes. St. Paul, Minn.: Zenith Press, 2004. 321 pages. $24.95.

This is a stimulating--nay, provocative--book that should cause military readers and all associated with the security of the United States to question their fundamental assumptions. It is also a gutsy book because the author, a serving officer, asserts in effect that the Secretary of Defense, his team in the Pentagon, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff are wrong in the way they seek to transform the nation's armed forces and in the way they are fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He further contends that the United States stands a good chance of losing its wars in the future unless the forces confront the realities of warfare in this century.

Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, USMC, the senior Marine fellow in the Institute for National Security Studies at the National Defense University, contends that the United States is engaging in a fourth generation of warfare, which he labels "4GW" throughout his book. This form of warfare, he says, "directly attacks the minds of enemy decision makers to destroy the enemy's political will." The author writes that 4GW has been evolving for seven decades, and the United States has already lost three times: Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia. Similarly, the French lost in Vietnam and Algeria and the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and the Russians continue to bleed in Chechnya. For the United States in Iraq, Hammes argues: "Clearly, 4GW is a very different concept from the short, intense war the Administration planned for and celebrated by declaring the end of major combat on May 1, 2003."

In construct, Hammes sees the first generation of war as peaking with the massed land armies of the Napoleonic era. The second generation was the trench warfare of World War I. The third generation featured the firepower and maneuver of World War II, notably in the German blitzkrieg. All reflected the industrial, communications, and political developments of their times.

Expanding on 4GW, Hammes says that the message is clear for any rinky-dink power or band such as al Qaeda wishing to shift the balance of power: "Only unconventional warfare works against established powers." Therefore, Hammes emphasizes: "As the only Goliath left in the world, we should be worried that the world's Davids have found a sling and stone that work." He berates the Department of Defense: "Yet internal DOD debate has largely ignored this striking difference between the outcomes of conventional and unconventional conflicts. In fact, DOD has largely ignored unconventional warfare."

In particular, Hammes contends that the current concentration on advanced technology is mistaken. "True believers in technology see warfare as being reduced to a one-sided contest where the technologically superior side dictates all action," he argues. "We continue to focus on technological solutions at the tactical and operational [levels] without a serious discussion of the strategic imperatives or the nature of the war we are fighting." Hammes says, "I strongly disagree with the idea that technology provides an inherent advantage to the United States." Elaborating, he writes: "The information revolution allows our potential 4GW enemies to not only match our capabilities in many areas but actually exceed them in some." The wars of today and tomorrow, the author asserts, "are long term struggles that will be won or lost primarily with human skills and knowledge."

Hammes is at his best in chapters on Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Prior to 9/11, al Qaeda stayed on message for internal Islamic and external US audiences and succeeded in painting Saudi Arabia, anally of the United States, as a corrupt regime. Bin Laden also played on an American weakness: patience. Tired of seeking peace in the Middle East and being hated for it, many Americans would have opted to go home. Then came 9/11, which Hammes believes was a major mistake from al Qaeda's standpoint because, like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, it awakened a sleeping giant. In Afghanistan, he says, there have been positive developments: "Coalition forces have recognized the nature of the war they are in and are developing much more effective responses." On the other side, the insurgents are counting on the United States not to have staying power.

Of Iraq, Colonel Hammes writes bluntly: "The Bush Administration failed to understand the type of war they were embarking on." Unfortunately, he continues, "the underlying nature of the Iraq war is not that of a high-tech war but that of a fourth generation." The insurgents in Iraq "are clearly an intelligent, adept, and adaptable enemy." They have shown a "clear strategic concept of destroying American will by attacking US forces, any government or NGO [non-governmental organization] supporting the United States, and any Iraqis working for or believed to be collaborating with the United States." The greatest strength of any insurgent, Hammes explains, is that "he doesn't have to win. He simply has to stay in the fight until the coalition gives up and goes home."