Updated: May 16, 2021
“Every age has its own kind of war, its own limiting conditions, and its own peculiar preconceptions.” Carl von Clausewitz
It was in the early 1990s that the concepts of Military Revolution and a Revolution in Military Affairs were brought back into the forefront of discussion amongst military theorists. These two concepts are, fluid and difficult to define accurately at times because they attempt to codify the ever-changing character of warfare. Whatever their ideological shortcomings, these two, however, serve a point to be a finer point in distinguishing the unchanging nature of war (why we fight), and its ever-changing character of war (how we fight).
Between the two, the Military Revolution (MR) concept pointed toward the rapid change(s) in the way wars were fought (advancing technology plus changes in tactics and doctrine). These rapid changes often occurred with devastating results until the battlefield could be equalized when the enemy adapted either similar weapons or tactics. In terms of geopolitics, MR was/is applied at the swiftness with which drastic political changes occurred, such as the large-scale departure from monarchial empires in the 19th century, to the communist and Islamic revolutions of the 20th.
A Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) on the other hand, often speaks to a more subtle, but still significant, paradigm shift, in how wars are fought. This is usually the second and third-order effects brought about by developments in certain technologies that expand the depth and scope of battlefield capabilities. These changes usually go on to fundamentally change the character of warfare (e.g., reorganizing an Army, airpower to space power, etc.). As the old saying goes, you ride a military revolution; you guide a revolution in military affairs. (Source)
Along those lines of addressing change (whether suddenly or subtly), the United States Department of Defense (DOD), along with her varied sister intelligence agencies, have long prided themselves in planning for virtually every contingency, in every domain, known to man. These domains include the traditional ones of land, sea, and air, as well as newer (or revisited) domains of cyber, subterranean, urban, and space. The rapid, 20th-century advancements in technology, have also extended into the weaponization of non-corporeal aspects of our existence as well. This includes weaponizing information (propaganda, deep fakes, and disinformation campaigns), global surveillance, as well as encrypting communication, and digitizing currency.
This last part brings us close to the subject at hand.
Despite the DOD’s expansive appetite for spreading Pax Americana around the world, there is one domain that has seemingly remained elusive to our modern US Government. In fact, it has become one of, if not, the largest blind spot our national defense has, and it is in regards to religion. This is not to say the Department of Defense refuses to acknowledge its existence. Rather, it simply ignores the obvious, and looks for ulterior, and often, more inconvenient motivations for why people and groups do what they do.
Religious ideology has simply become too politically charged an issue these days to address objectively, even by a supposed unbiased and impartial government. Even after being mired down in an unwinnable and global “war on terror” for the past twenty years, our government has refused to call Islam what it truly is- an ideological time bomb set to erupt any time our true adversary chooses to pull the trigger. It promotes violence as a means to an end and is filled with an army of non-uniformed, stateless soldiers absolutely committed to our absolute destruction (i.e., Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, etc.).
Even after 9/11, Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom, the US government (depending on the administration) is more often than not, loathe to actually call these wars against a radicalized ideology. Instead, they often attempt to placate it by calling it a “religion of peace,” and then blame any radicalization by its adherents, victims of westernization, free-market capitalism, YouTube videos, or any other contrived (or real) social injustice. This, even after its warriors themselves, claim to be fighting for Islamic domination.
The truth is, religious ideologies, are almost always, the sine qua non (for out which, there is not) causation for why people groups do what they do. Even so-called non-religious belief systems, such as Atheism, end up becoming systems of faith. These almost always end up in some form of militancy, demanding their views become the accepted and dominant views in their cities, nations, or regions. Atheism, for example, was the ideological foundation upon which Marxism (later Fascism and Communism) was founded upon. Its primary tenet replaced God with government, and those governments, almost without fail, handed over that godlike power to an individual who ended up ruling as a tyrannical despot (Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) In the wake of its red tide, hundreds of millions lay dead.
Godless regimes were not alone in these power-hungry endeavors, organized religion also shares some of the burdens. Roman Catholicism, at the height of the Dark - Middle Ages, attempted to superficially impose its version of the kingdom of God over the nations it held in its sway. Tens of millions of Christians, Jews, Arabs, and non-converts were tortured and killed in the unbiblical Crusades and Inquisitions.
Similarly, Islam attempted its many caliphates over the centuries (e.g., Rashidun, Sasanian, Umayyad, Abbasid, and Ottoman empires). These empires were built by violently converting former Christian and pagan nations (e.g., Syria, Turkey, Bosnia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) into Muslim nations under the pain of death. For them then (and even now), the non-Muslim world was divided into three sections- the dar al-Islam (house of Islam), the dar al-harb (house of war), and the dar al-sulh (house of treaty). Those nations who were not already Islamized (house of Islam), were either in the house of war (where Islamists waged war against), or the house of treaty (where non-converts had to protect and pay tribute to Islamists). Again, none of this is a secret to anyone, but nobody wants to address it not only as a present issue but the issue. Instead, they dismiss the deaths of hundreds of millions of Jews, Christians, and pagans as an antiquated historical footnote.
The in-depth discussion of the aforementioned belief systems, exceed the scope and intent of this brief, so their mentions will only be in relation to the primary subject- Bible Prophecy. However, there are three reasons why religious ideologies (especially Biblical Christianity) have become elusive no-go zones for western governments, and those will only be discussed here summarily. Those reasons are political correctness, hermeneutical confusion, and secular humanism.
Political correctness (i.e., Cultural Marxism) and human secularism (atheism, agnosticism, nihilism, etc.) have been mainstays in western governments since at least the 1950s. Paradoxically, the rise of these largely atheistic philosophies began to occur at the same time we were engaged in a bitter Cold War against an atheist superpower. These two (political correctness and human secularism) have been increasingly effective tools in silencing any objective discussion on the subjects of the supremacy of Jesus Christ’s divine claims as the King of kings, and Lord of Lords, and to the Holy Bible. It has been so effective in fact, one would be hard-pressed these days to find any official military and/or government literature concerning the strategic geopolitical implications discussed in Bible prophecy. It is almost as if, from a military perspective, Bible prophecy is a non-factor.
The insurgence of hermeneutical confusion (hermeneutics being how one interprets the Bible) on the other hand, has been a particularly insidious one. First creeping into seminaries of the late 1800s, religious liberalism has taken many forms, but its chief objective has only ever been to undermine biblical doctrines like inerrancy and eschatology. Academically, this confusion came in the name of higher (meaning and authority) and lower criticism (the physical documents themself). Whereas human secularism and political correctness almost always attack Christianity from without, religious liberalism has been the enemy in the gates since day one.
The intent of this article then is to discuss the five major geopolitical events clearly outlined in the Bible. Whether the “top brass” at the Pentagon finds these topics relevant or not is irrelevant; these events are destined to happen. When they do, they will have massive, military/ economic/ political ramifications not just to the United States, but to the global order as well. Each of these topics will be arranged into the five distinctive categories- what, who, when, where, and why. These events will be discussed purely in a strategic and logistical manner:
1. The Rapture of the Church
2. The War of Gog-Magog
3. The Four Horsemen (Seal Judgments 1-4)
4. The Kings of the East
5. The Armageddon Campaign