Terrorism in Oregon or political savvy?

I've noticed a lot of frustration on Facebook from folks who believe there is racism inherent in the media's coverage of the militia uprising in Oregon compared to the #BlackLivesMatter protests in Ferguson in Baltimore. If you haven't followed closely in the news, some ranchers in Oregon who started a fire (with good, legal cause, they argue) were arrested and convicted as terrorists behind the cheerleading of a neighboring, federal wildlife preserve that had a long-standing feud with the ranching family.

The Bundy's, an activist/militia group out west, took the opportunity to show up in Oregon to protest, even seizing remote property of the wildlife preserve and vowing to hold it until Federal agents come and remove them by violence. The Bundy's seem to be motivated largely by looking for opportunities to challenge the expanding reach of the Federal government and desiring a less centralized American state...good luck to them in that venture, I see little hope of that occurring anytime soon, at least not in the fashion they are hoping for.

The media has been hesitant to stick with the label applied by the courts, that this is a terrorism event, which has infuriated BLM (Black Lives Matter) activists and sympathizers who believe that this act of armed, civil disobedience would be more fiercely condemned if the Bundy's and their fellow protestors were people of color rather than white American males.

I've got an alternative prism for looking at this whole issue that doesn't come down to whether you think either protest movement is sympathetic or criminally evil. I think the Bundy's are a much more politically savvy 4th generation unit than is the BLM movement.

4th Generation Warfare

If you read any of my musings on politics you'll note that I put a great deal of emphasis on the concept of "4th generation warfare" which military theorist William S. Lind highlights as a major shift in how the world handles conflict and something likely to heavily impact the future of the Western state.

The theory of 4G warfare is that in the modern era the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which established a sort of state monopoly on armed conflict, has given way to a world in which the primary focus of armed conflict is between the state and non-state actors.

The State system is losing legitimacy around the world and people are lining up to fight on behalf of causes, tribes, and other reasons against the interests of the state. The #BlackLivesMatter movement is not generally a group that focuses on armed conflict, but they are absolutely a group that is working against the state and even apply violence (looting and violence in Maryland, Missouri) to bring disorder and work against the state.

Their sympathizers like to emphasize how none of these events featured armed protestors, but that hardly matters when many of the results include violence and disorder.

The Bundy militia are also a 4th generation group, an armed American militia looking to work directly against the state in support of their own cause. They claim to be fighting for the constitution, but while the American nation may be sympathetic to that cause, this militia is still working directly against the people's government.

However, while the Bundy's are carrying weapons and confronting federal authority in a more direct fashion than did recent BLM protests, you'll notice there are two things they are not doing.

First of all, they are not acting to undermine the state in its most basic function, which is maintaining order. None of these protests have caused harm to other Americans nor threatened any great future harm like the BLM protests did by looting shops and turning Ferguson and Baltimore into lawless dens of robbers.

Secondly, they are positioning themselves in a place of potential weakness in order to win on the moral level.

In a 4th generation conflict, you'll notice that victories are generally won on the moral level. For instance, the US has been bombing resistance fighters in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria for ages without seeing any positive results in the aim to establish Western-friendly/terrorist-hostile states in any of those regions. Winning on the physical level is useless without victories on the moral level. Here's a grid that William S. Lind designed to guide how victories can be won by either side in 4th generation conflicts:

Ideally you want all activities to have check marks in that bottom right box where the "moral" and "strategic" levels overlap.

Who's on a more likely path to victory?

Now let's consider the BLM protests in accordance with the grid. On a strategic level they drew a lot of attention to the issue of violence by white cops against young black men, but on a moral level they were massive failures as the protests hardly came across as justifiable and the alleged martyrs had murky character that made them less sympathetic as heroes.

The Bundy's on the other hand have succeeded at the strategic and moral levels in seizing an obscure government facility that would be difficult to recover without a scene in which American power is flexed against a smaller, weaker foe in which case the state would look like a bully. How can the Federal government win this altercation on a moral level?

If they go in with force and have to kill these men it will provoke national outcry. If they try to do it quietly and with military precision like they did with Osama Bin Laden it could look even worse and lead to cries of "look, the government is turning all these modern weapons and surveillance tools on it's own citizens!"

Meanwhile, none of the actions of the militia are causing any major or obvious harm to Americans so they don't stand to lose on a moral level from these behaviors whereas the BLM movement alienated many people, including fellow minorities who weren't inclined to side with the aggressive and massive young black man who bullied and robbed a small Asian clerk.

Strategically, the Bundy's have forced the state into a direct conflict in which their cause is given national attention and potential sympathy from Americans all over the country who are also hesitant about Federal overreach. I doubt the Bundy's win this ultimately, as it should be simple enough for the state to just ignore them and avoid a confrontation over an issue that has little to no impact or relevance in the minds of most Americans. But the strategy here is solid, much better than what we're seeing from the BLM movement.

Whatever you think of either the BLM folks or the modern day private militia, they are both parts of very modern struggles that are going to become increasingly commonplace in a 4th generation world.

Most people are going to discuss which of these two sides is right or wrong based on how they sympathize with either group, but on a purely pragmatic level it's clear which side is utilizing sound strategy and which side is fumbling the ball. If you don't like the outcome but still believe in the cause, change the strategy.