Thing is, war is the art that subsumes all other arts and sciences. Everything has a place in it and everything is worthy of study, from plastic arts to propaganda and from psychology to Schrechlichkeit. I try to cover as much of it as possible in my books, but even with a couple of millions words of those by now, I can still only scratch the surface.

Short of that, the most I can say is look at the article on the principles I put into RTRH I, and use those as a study guide.

I did, sir. Twice. As you say, there was rather more to your essay than just the question of whether decision cycle theory is borne out by the facts.

Would you have any readings, other than the reading list you posted in one of your earlier articles over at EveryJoe.com, that you consider essential to understanding both the theory and practice of warfare in a modern setting?

Also, you're instincts are correct; one should always be _deeply_ suspicious of elegant sounding theories and never more so than when they involve the very inelegant matter of war.

My major problem with the notion of 4GW is that it isn't 4GW; it's that it's 0GW V. 2.0. It's simply a descent into / reversion to barbarism, with no redeeming virtues that I can see. For example, how does one make peace in a world of 4GW? The simple answer is you don't, indeed, you don't even know who to make peace _with_, and even if you do he's unlikely to be able to control his movement to the point that there will not be splitters to continue the war.