I came across this deeply shocking article about Camp 22 in North Korea. Yet another hell on earth courtesy of an evil Communist regime.
Reading the article merely corroborated what I've long suspected: there's a major oversight; indeed flaw with the current thinking about 4th generation warfare. The theories don't take into account the gulags and concentration camps and how to integrate them in the conduct of 4th generation warfare. I read too much conventional thinking about usual stuff like guerrillas, weapons of mass destruction but never anything about the secret police apparatus of totalitarian regimes.
The most effective way to bring down regimes like North Korea is to target the whole concentration camp system and go after them with the same determination as taking out command and control infrastructures. Regimes like North Korea are predicated on the delusional belief that the concentration camp system is totally invulnerable; untouchable. Target the camps as well as the secret police apparatus and the regime will implode. North Korea's elites have survived external threats; they'll hang from the lamp posts if ever the concentration camp prisoners escape from their hellholes.
So the planners and thinks of the new warfare will have to reflect on how to include the camps. My own personal preference is to allocate some cruise missiles, smart bombs and pilotless drones to wipe out the guard towers, barracks and power plants Targeting the concentration camp system would also fulfill a major tenet of the new warfare: pursue the unexpected strategy and shock the enemy with paralyzing shock from which they can never recover from.
Den Beste wrote a brief comment to my article: Den Beste and the French pauvre toi at his blog. He asks a reasonable question about why the American should accept French troop contributions. There are several reasons but 2 of the most important are:
a) If the American administration refuse and publicly mortify the French, it will reinforce the terrible stereotype that the Americans are unilateral cowboys who'll their own interests but prevent the allies from legitimately pursuing their own. Just because the French don't get gooey eyed over advancing democracy and human rights as the Americans tend to, doesn't signify that the former don't care about those values. James Bennett once explained to me the French advance their interest first and then the values of a democratic, capitalist open society will follow; the Americans it's the reverse;hence the occasional friction.
b)If the Americans did refuse the French offer to send troops, the Europeans would appraise the decision as hypocritical: the Americans don't want allies but waterboys and butlers. They have to undertake the difficult and thankless task of nation building in regions that America quickly loses interest and don't really advance European/Allied interests. America, in the meantime, unburdens itself from 'petty activities' incompatible with a superpower and pursues its interest without constraints.
Such a decision would spur the ambitious Eurocrats in Brussels to argue that only a unified Europe with a common military would be strong enough to restrain American power. Also, America's decision would highlight Matt Welch's article about NATO: that if the Europeans are to be less petulant and participate more fully in the war; America will delegate to the Europeans their own defense and not carp incessantly about low military spending or gratuitously mock European military capabilities. As the European adapt to the realities of their own defense, they'll be less stridently anti-American
The Europeans would correctly appraise the American position as hypocritical: the latter would harangue the former about how they're sacrificing their economic well being to fight the war; while the Europeans freeload by adopting overly generous social programs. The Europeans would simply manifest their apathy. After all, America wants to defend the world; let it, as it's denigrated Europe's past offers and mocked its military capabilities.