Lind, as a rightwinger, has for years tirelessly promoted the idea that progressivism is a clever Trojan horse designed to destroy America and that the rightwing's beloved "culture wars" are destined to become real military conflicts on the ground, here, in the United States.
His military lectures and writings frequently include propaganda intended to foster xenophobia and hostility to "multiculturalism". His message is softened or hardened, depending on the venue, which (I must admit) sometimes makes him sound normal and reasonable.
But this is a standard rightwing organizing tactic, and beneath the veneer resides an intolerance, indistinguishable from that of Coulter and like extremists, who also obtain mainstream press coverage.
As you correctly point out, of course, none of that is reason to avoid reading Lind, and more power to anyone (I'd add) who can wade through Lind's worst bilge, at least to keep an eye on him.
I must wonder, though, how insightful his military remarks can really be: in the article at the top of this thread, for example, Lind reports (accurately) about helicopter assaults invariably preceeding janjaweed attacks, but also blithely asserts that there is no relation between the government and the militias, as if unaware of the logical contradiction within his own text.
It seems clear to me that the article at hand has less to do with Sudanese warfare than with the promotion of Lind's underlying thesis that anyone concerned about the slaughter of foreign tribes is a wimpy "goo goo" multiculturalist, undermining the security of the United States -- a view I consider offensive.
Multiculturalism Reigns Over the West by William S. Lind
The purpose of the ideology known commonly as "multiculturalism" is to destroy America. In the 21st century world of fourth-generation warfare, it is likely to succeed. To understand why, we first must understand both phenomena.
<snip>
http://www.grecoreport.com/multiculturalism_reigns_over_the_west.htmHarvard University
John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies
On American Soil: The Widening Gap between the U.S. Military and U.S. Society
By Thomas E. Ricks
Project on U.S. Post Cold-War Civil-Military Relations May 1996
<snip>
More prominently, in a December 1994 article in the Marine Corps Gazette, William S. Lind, a military analyst who has been influential on the doctrinal thinking of the post-Cold War Marines, wrote with two Marine reservists that American culture is "collapsing":
Starting in the mid-1960's, we have thrown away the values, morals, and standards that define traditional Western culture. In part, this has been driven by cultural radicals, people who hate our Judeo-Christian culture. Dominant in the elite, especially in the universities, the media and the entertainment industries (now the most powerful force in our culture and a source of endless degradation), the cultural radicals have successfully pushed an agenda of moral relativism, militant secularism, and sexual and social `liberation.' This agenda has slowly codified into a new ideology, usually known as `multiculturalism' or `political correctness,' that is in essence Marxism translated from economic into social and cultural terms.44
There is little remarkable about that paragraph, which reads like standard right-wing American rhetoric of the `90's, not all that different from Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan on a prolix day. Its significance lies in the conclusion that Mr. Lind and his co-authors draw from their analysis: "The point is not merely that America's Armed Forces will find themselves facing non-nation-state conflicts and forces overseas. The point is that the same conflicts are coming here." So, they conclude, "The next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil."
<snip>
http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/olin/publications/workingpapers/civil_military/no3.htmFourth Generation Warfare: Is It Coming Live To A Theatre Near You?
By Paul M. Weyrich December 17, 2002
<snip>
Lind and his co-authors advanced the thesis that there would be a shift from warfare being fought by nation-states to ones in which our primary antagonists were likely to be religions, interest groups, or tribes fighting cause-oriented warfare. They wrote in the article that the threat to our country was likely to come from "non-Western cultural traditions, such as Islamic or Asiatic traditions…The fact that some non-Western areas, such as the Islamic world, are not strong in technology may lead them to develop a fourth generation
through ideas rather than technology."
<snip>
The idea behind Fourth Generation warfare is to promote the collapse of the targeted society from within, and we have every reason to worry that our own nation's multiculturalism will blind us to the real challenge that confronts us.
<snip>
http://www.freecongress.org/commentaries/2002/021217PW.asp
Understanding Fourth Generation War by William S. Lind
<snip>
Nor is Fourth Generation warfare merely something we import, as we did on 9/11. At its core lies a universal crisis of legitimacy of the state, and that crisis means many countries will evolve Fourth Generation war on their soil. America, with a closed political system (regardless of which party wins, the Establishment remains in power and nothing really changes) and a poisonous ideology of "multiculturalism," is a prime candidate for the home-grown variety of Fourth Generation war – which is by far the most dangerous kind.
<snip>
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind3b.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
