Venezuela as an Exporter of 4th Generation Warfare Instability

Authored by Dr. Max G. Manwaring.

December 2012

62 Pages

Brief Synopsis

Almost no one seems to understand the Marxist-Leninist foundations of Hugo Chavez’s political thought. It becomes evident, however, in the general vision of his “Bolivarian Revolution.” The abbreviated concept is to destroy the old foreign-dominated (U.S. dominated) political and economic systems in the Americas, to take power, and to create a socialist, nationalistic, and “popular” (direct) democracy in Venezuela that would sooner or later extend throughout the Western Hemisphere. Despite the fact that the notion of the use of force (compulsion) is never completely separated from the Leninist concept of destroying any bourgeois opposition, Chavez’s revolutionary vision will not be achieved through a conventional military war of maneuver and attrition, or a traditional insurgency. According to Lenin and Chavez, a “new society” will only be created by a gradual, systematic, compulsory application of agitation and propaganda (i.e., agit-prop). That long-term effort is aimed at exporting instability and generating public opinion in favor of a “revolution” and against the bourgeois system. Thus, the contemporary asymmetric revolutionary warfare challenge is rooted in the concept that the North American (U.S.) “Empire” and its bourgeois political friends in Latin America are not doing what is right for the people, and that the socialist Bolivarian philosophy and leadership will. This may not be a traditional national security problem for the United States and other targeted countries, and it may not be perceived to be as lethal as conventional conflict, but that does not diminish the cruel reality of compulsion.

Summary

Almost no one seems to understand the Marxist-Leninist foundations of Hugo Chavez’s political thought. It becomes evident, however, in the general vision of his “Bolivarian Revolution.” The abbreviated concept is to destroy the old foreign-dominated (U.S. dominated) political and economic systems in the Americas, to take power, and to create a socialist, nationalistic, and “popular” (direct) democracy in Venezuela that would sooner or later extend throughout the Western Hemisphere. Despite the fact that the notion of the use of force (compulsion) is never completely separated from the Leninist concept of destroying any bourgeois opposition, Chavez’s revolutionary vision will not be achieved through a conventional military war of maneuver and attrition, or a traditional insurgency. According to Lenin and Chavez, a “new society” will only be created by a gradual, systematic, compulsory application of agitation and propaganda (i.e., agit-prop). That long-term effort is aimed at exporting instability and generating public opinion in favor of a “revolution” and against the bourgeois system. Thus, the contemporary asymmetric revolutionary warfare challenge is rooted in the concept that the North American (U.S.) “Empire” and its bourgeois political friends in Latin America are not doing what is right for the people, and that the socialist Bolivarian philosophy and leadership will.

In these terms, regime legitimacy is key to the conflict, and it is public opinion that is the main target of the revolutionary effort. Chavez’s vision comes at a time when, despite general economic progress, there are deep flaws in the democratic political systems throughout the Western Hemisphere. Relative popular dissatisfaction stems from deep-rooted socioeconomic inequalities; distrust; and lack of confidence in the police, national legislatures, and political parties. There are also rising popular expectations along with a popular consciousness of currently nonexistent rights. Latin America, now—as in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s—appears to be a revolutionary’s dream. Thus, it appears that Hugo Chavez is prepared to help friends, partners, and allies to destabilize, to facilitate the processes of state failure, and to “destroy in order to build” in true revolutionary fashion. Moreover, according to Chavez, it does not matter whether or not he will be able to continue to direct that effort. He states straightforwardly that “. . . independent of my personal destiny, this revolution . . . has gotten its start, and nothing and no one can stop it.” Consequently, this monograph will address four cogent issues operating within the context of President Chavez’s grand strategic political-psychological destabilization effort. They are: 1) Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Vision; 2) Key Components of the Chavez Strategic-Level Asymmetric (4th Generation War) War Model; 3) The Paramilitary Operational Model for Compelling Radical Change in the Western Hemisphere; and, 4) Implications and Recommendations.

The kind of warfare outlined implicitly and explicitly above represents a triple threat to the authority, legitimacy, and stability of targeted governments: 1) it undermines the ability to perform legitimizing security and well-being functions; 2) it replaces traditional nation-state authority (sovereignty) with alternative governance; and, 3) it conducts low-cost actions calculated to move a state into the state failure process. The logic of this situation demonstrates that the conscious choices that individual nation-states and the international community make about how to deal with these kinds of threats will define the processes of national, regional, and global security and well-being now and for the future. Accordingly, we must adapt our approach to security and organize our institutions to address the concept of contemporary asymmetric, unconventional, undeclared intrastate war (i.e., 4th Generation War). We must also adapt our approach to the overwhelming reality that just as the world has evolved from an industrial society to an information-based society, so has warfare. The reality of this evolution demonstrates the need for a new paradigm of conflict based on the fact that information—not firepower—is the currency upon which war is now conducted. The new primary center of gravity is public opinion and political leadership. The “new” instruments of power are intelligence, public diplomacy, media, time, and flexibility. The one thing that remains the same is that one level or another of compulsion still defines war.

Hugo Chavez and his selected leadership understand that contemporary asymmetric war is not a kind of appendage (a lesser or limited thing) to the more comfortable conventional military attrition warfare paradigms. It is a great deal more. This takes us back to where we began. Chavez and his supporters understand the importance of dreams about the survival and a better life for much of any given population. These are the bases of power—all else is illusion. This may not be a traditional national security problem for the United States and other targeted countries, and it may not be perceived to be as lethal as conventional conflict, but that does not diminish the cruel reality of compulsion.

Access Full Report [PDF]: Venezuela as an Exporter of 4th Generation Warfare Instability