Users of
Internet Explorer 6.x
or before should be aware
that this site works best in
Firefox (best choice) or
Internet Explorer 7.x.
Some helpful links:
 |
| IE 7 at Microsoft |
Disclaimers
Site
System Perturbation: A situation that causes a break down in, or invalidation of, a system level rule-set
Rule-Set: The underlying principles (groups of rules) that define and govern norms of behavior and conduct.
Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): The strategic mindset premised upon creating or manipulating a system perturbation in order to change an existing rule-set or replace an obsolete rule-set. (10/14/06 Arherring)
As 5GW is an emerging and developing theory, trying to carve it in stone at this point would be foolish. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I am going to stick the above definition as my working definition. The definitions of system perturbation and rule-set are taken from Tom Barnett among others but reflect my personal understanding of the concepts.
As I wrote previously in Welcome to the World of 5GW, there are multitudes of ways people are approaching the theory of 5GW. These approaches are mostly focusing on the execution of 5GW rather than its underlying principles, what it will look like more than why it looks like that. I can understand the reasoning for this approach though I notice that what people see in 5GW execution seems to reflect a great deal of their previous theories. The three example scenarios I used in Welcome to the World of 5GW were; memetic engineering, the super-empowered individual, and Sysadmin. I will confess that in the interests of appealing to as many readers as possible I was attempting to make them sound as different as possible.
They are not. In reality they are virtually identical…
Way down deep at the very core each of them is, in effect, creating or reacting to a system perturbation and seeking to create either a new rule-set defined by the 5GW organization, or a defined situation where a new rule-set will emerge.
Memetic Engineering:
It does not matter what the meme is as long as it causes a desired system disruption. It can be E. Coli in the spinach or an anti-war movement. If it suits the needs of the 5GW organization that meme will be propagated until it invalidates the desired rule-set. The 5GW organization will then move to either establish the new rule-set or influence those who will.
Rule-set – System perturbation – New rule-set
Super-empowered individuals:
A catastrophic ‘Black Swan’ certainly would cause a great many rule-sets to be placed in flux. Whether or not the 5GW organization is actually responsible for the ‘Black Swan’ is irrelevant. I am sure some organizations will be ruthless enough to do so but as far as theory goes it isn’t a necessary element for the 5GW organization to perform, the system perturbation and the resulting 5GW opportunity is.
Rule-set – System perturbation – New rule-set
Sysadmin:
The example put forward by Tom Barnett in The Pentagon’s New Map involves the dichotomy of Leviathan and Sysadmin. In this example unless a system perturbation already exists (MoOTW) the 2GW / 3GW Leviathan is responsible for the system perturbations where and when deemed necessary by preemptively fighting the battles. Afterward it is the job of the 5GWish Sysadmin to fight the peace, a lasting peace imposed at the rule-set level, not at the barrel of a gun.
Rule-set – System perturbation – New rule-set
In summary, as I see 5GW right now, this progression of; rule-set, system perturbation, new rule-set, is what defines 5GW. The methods can, and will, vary so greatly that they will in many ways appear completely different, but their effects are the same. A spreading meme or a ‘Black Swan,’ or a Sysadmin operation without this progression is merely pop-culture / sensationalism, terrorism, or an ineffective reconstruction effort.
Posted by Arherring on Oct 14, 2006 10:24 PM
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Rule-Sets, System Perturbations and 5GW.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/27.
I would like to expand upon the idea of system perturbation as presented by Dreaming 5GW. This progression of; rule-set, system perturbation, new rule-set, is what defines all forms of warfare. In my mind, the distinguishing aspect of 5GW would be the … Read More
5 Comments
“System Perturbation: A situation that causes a break down in, or invalidation of, a system level rule-set”
So it does, but a system perturbation often involves not just these abstractions but often consequential physical and economic system disruption as well. Ripple effects are at least societal and possibly global.
I would like to expand upon the idea of system perturbation. This progression of; rule-set, system perturbation, new rule-set, is what defines all forms of warfare. In my mind, the distinguishing aspect of 5GW would be the nature of its system perturbation. If we accept that 5GW would address the observing process in the OODA loop then the perturbation would happen there. This seems to me to include the field of education. One of the primary targets of the Taliban in Afghanistan today is the schools, especially the ones educating girls. This seems to me to be an example of the friction Barnett speaks of. The actual application of force lies in the schools. And I believe that this force can be incremental. This would allow for small steps moving from bad to good, good to better and better to best, not one of Barnett’s ‘Big Bangs’. Of course this progression would beget changes that would be resisted, but this resistance would not be a result of the force as much as a result of the friction. What is then being implemented is the management of change. This managed evolution would then seem to be ‘natural’ as much as change itself is perceived to be a natural process. This disguise of a war effort as a natural process is very 5GW. The families and communities are supporting the schools educating Afghanistan girls even though the result would be an unraveling of the tribal mentality ultimately supplanting the tribal mentality with a larger worldview. Would not this be an excellent 5GW maneuver? Without the resistance created by a entrenched and habitual tribal mentality where would the Taliban obtain its fighters? So I suppose my argument is that the above first two examples would be as much of a 5GW exploitation of 4GW system perturbation as the third would be an exploitation of 2GW / 3GW system perturbation. What I would like to imagine would be a more pure form of 5GW where the system perturbation is itself a 5GW effort. See this Defense and the National Interest article for an excellent discussion of the tribal mindset.
RevG,
I’m really enjoying your input on these posts!
I was thinking this same thing when I read this post. I almost commented on the fact that I’ve even suggested that EBO describes all warfare but the utterly destructive: the different ‘generations’ of warfare merely describe different effects and different operational styles/methods for achieving them. In the same way, a ‘system perturbation’ to create a changed reality would describe all warfare, although the scale of the ‘system’ and the way it is changed will be different for different generations of warfare. Thus, as you’ve written,
Also, I think this is an important consideration:
In fact, the idea that any 5GW ‘system perturbation’ would need to be large and quite attention-grabbing is, in my mind, a bit off. That almost defeats the secrecy aspect of 5GW; it gives the target too much awareness of the changing reality and allows the target the opportunity to self-examine as well as examine the situation in order to adapt: too much control over the situation, really. This is not to say that the system perturbation can never be large-scale and sudden, however, requiring immediate steps by the target.
I absolutely agree. I concluded my first post ever on 5GW (at my other blog, PC, but transfered here) with lines from the Tao Te Ching. Concerning the ‘ideal leader”,
For this effect to be achieved, the people themselves have already become the ‘managers of change’ responding to environments which seem to have occurred somewhat naturally. Large system perturbations which are obviously the work of some other party, even if that party is unseen, would create a reactionary mindset rather than a ‘managerial’ mindset. Of course, if adversarial third parties are presented to those managers by the 5GW force (proxies / dupes), the managers may not believe all has happened naturally — although I believe the same sort of thing would happen as has happened w/ America’s dawning awareness of al-Qaida networks: those third parties would be speedily historicized, given a background, and the target of 5GW would believe that it was a problem already waiting to happen before it ‘happened.’
Mark,
That is the real difficulty. Large system perturbations may have more use in 4GW, where the goal is utter collapse or at least quite a bit of chaos. It is interesting to consider such a thought while also considering what happened when the American 3GW perturbation hit Iraq. I know that Barnett postulates a SysAdmin able to clean up after such perturbations; but I wonder if the level of perturbation is proportionate to the likelihood of success (or failure) for the clean-up crew…
” I know that Barnett postulates a SysAdmin able to clean up after such perturbations; but I wonder if the level of perturbation is proportionate to the likelihood of success (or failure) for the clean-up crew…”
I think the clean-up crew is an independent variable at present. That would be a good question, however, to put to Tom sometime.
SP’s can also be natural ( Tsunami, Hurricaine Katrina) and unintended ( Crash of 1929) or emerge from a confluence of lesser events acting in synergy.