University of Los Andes (ULA) senior lecturer in political sciences, Jutta Schmitt writes: In the context of the threat and open provocation that constitutes, for Venezuela and all of Latin America, the setting up of seven US military bases on Colombian territory (in addition to three bases US forces are already operating from), Venezuelan-American lawyer Eva Golinger warned in the television programme La Hojilla on August 14, 2009, about a new war doctrine recently released by the Pentagon and already being executed here in Venezuela: Irregular Warfare.
Considering the seriousness of what Golinger brought forward in the programme mentioned, it is pertinent to go more deeply into the matter in order to determine, how this new doctrine is connected with other concepts and realities as for example Fourth Generation Warfare as well as with ideological constructions like the so called Theory of the New Wars. The latter is a compound of arbitrary postulates originating from the academical realm and sold to the public as a ‘theory’ which dates back to the beginning of the new millennium and which has quickly found its way into the sphere of the national security strategies of both, the United States of America and the European Union. Once we’ve come to know the interrelations and the general context into which the latest war doctrines are inscribed we can better design our own defense strategies and even think of outlining a categorical counter-offensive.
In an update for the doctrine of Irregular Warfare released by the US Department of Defense in December last year, we find the following definition of the concept:
” … to fight unconventionally, such as by working with foreign security forces, surrogates and indigenous resistance movements to shore up fragile states, extend the reach of US forces into denied areas or battle hostile regimes.” (1)
The directive then proceeds to explain the reasons for the update, referring in the first place to the emergence of irregular challenges that threaten the United States’ national security: ” The policy, a result of more than a year of debate in the defense establishment, is part of a broader overhaul of the US military’s role as the threat of large-scale combat against other nations’ armies has waned and new dangers have arisen from shadowy non-state actors, such as terrorists that target civilian populations.” (2)
The idea that ‘classical’ or conventional wars between national states as experienced during the 20th Century are a thing of the past and that the new wars of the 21st Century are of an essentially different character, is not that new. Since quite a couple of years already the US-American and European ruling classes, through their big means of mass communication, have been suggesting to the world public opinion that the protagonists of the wars of the 21st Century are some ‘bad guys’ who operate as ‘non-state-actors,’ in other words, terrorists.
We are told that the wars of the 21st Century are and will be inner-state armed conflicts with endemic roots, that is, home-made.
We are further told that this type of conflicts are of an ethnic, religious or political-ideological nature, prom