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
One of my main goals here at Dreaming 5GW is to establish a definition of Fifth Generation Warfare. My hope is to be able to explain the general concept of 5GW in a short paragraph. With that in mind I have started with a ‘working definition’. This ‘working definition’ is by no means carved in stone. It is an acorn that has a very long way to go before it can be called a tree.
My ‘working definition’ currently reads:
Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): an emergent theory of warfare premised upon strategically influencing change in systemic rule-sets through manipulation of multiple horizontal systems. (Arherring 10/21/06)
This ‘working definition’ reflects my current thinking that the progression of rule-set, system perturbation, new rule-set is the process 5GW will employ in its operations. I realize this progression is nothing new and often is a result of military operations, but unlike previous generational warfare where new rule-sets following system perturbations are a side effect, it is the directed focus on this process as method of action that I feel makes it a new generation concept.
To go along with this ‘working definition’ I have a list of topics that I wish to explore in more detail. Some I feel will have a direct effect on the shape of 5GW to come and some are merely topics that I think will be interesting to consider in light of 5GW.
This list currently contains (in no particular order):
Command push and recon pull in 5GW operations.
The roles and types of system perturbations.
The roles and types of rule-sets.
5GW as stage magic, Illusion or sleight-of-hand.
5GW as con game, flim-flam or grift.
The inherent (?) secrecy of 5GW.
The distinction between kinetic and non-kinetic actions.
The consideration of creative destruction.
The consideration of shaping a battle space.
The practice of warfare by proxy.
Open and Closed Source organizations applied to 5GW.
The ideal size of a 5GW organization.
The ability (requirement?) of operating on all sides of a conflict.
Increasing and decreasing resiliency as a 5GW manipulation.
The ability (requirement?) to operate as horizontally as possible.
The role of networks and new technology.
My intent is to revise the ‘working definition’ as I consider each of these topics to reflect my increased understanding of the material. Indeed, the real purpose of the ‘working definition’ is to generate more questions.
Posted by Arherring on Oct 28, 2006 09:12 AM
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: 'Working Definition' of 5GW and Topics of Exploration.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/32.
8 Comments
Strange to mix objective with operation in a definition, isn’t it? So the very same group, with the very same actions, who are attempting to change some policy instead of a “systemic rule-set” wouldn’t be 5GW? Isn’t that like defining blitzkrieg to include a desire to expand Germany?
Why is a policy not a systemic rule-set?
But I do see your point. As it is a working definition I expect to change it around, even completely rewrite it from scratch, many times. Clearing up items just like that it part of why I put it out there.
Because if it is, you are just using a ten-dollar word (“system rule-set”) to mean the same thing as a nickel word (“anything”).
Systemic logically refers to the systems level of analysis — where the “rules of the game” are determined, and “ruleset” is logically plural (otherwise, just say “rule”).
I agree with you — I love to think out loud on my blog. It improves my writing, and my thinking, immensely.
Dan,
What I am looking for in using the term “systemic rule-sets” is to involve several ideas at once.
First, that the change is in the system itself. I think this speaks to the possible inherent secrecy of 5GW operations because they either work at a level that most people pay little attention to, or that the 5GW operation induces the system to change itself (reinforced by the use of manipulation later in the definition.)
Second, that rule-sets are the targets and the goals of the 5GW operation but I wanted to have the sense that 5GW shouldn’t be concentrated on a single rule/policy/tradition/law. I think it will be combinations of rules that will be manipulated, some weakened and some reinforced, in order to drive change. As a sort of example, you might create a seemingly Catch-22 situation and then provide a way out creating a new rule-set.
How about this then:
Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): an emergent theory of warfare premised upon strategically influencing horizontal change through manipulation of multiple systemic rule-sets.
1. What if they wish the influence vertical change?
2. What if they are manipulating sub-systemic rulesets?
3. What if influencing horizontal change is influencing vertical change?
I think that’s part of what Arherring is getting at. And of course there are sub-sub-systemic rulesets, and sub-sub-sub-systemic rulesets, and the rulesets that govern the motion of atoms, too, Dan. Don’t forget those.
I thought that ‘manipulation of multiple horizontal systems’ was good, in the first formulation. Manipulation may not have been the right word, though. This reminds me of something I’ve been considering: that 5GW is closed-source, as you have said, but it’s a closed-source approach able to operate on the ‘open-source highway’ — to put it metaphorically. In a way, it is an effort to bring that open-source aggregate into line with the closed-source vision, but without attempting to do so vertically…which is why I like the consideration of manipulation of horizontal systems.
However, besides not quite liking ‘manipulation,’ I’m also not comfortable with the use of ‘systems’ in that phrase, because I do not believe we are necessarily talking about systems. We’re talking more about processes. Maybe my quibble is merely in the way the phrase has been formulated and used.
Then it would fall under Aherring’s original definition. So?
True. 3-level (Man, State,System) and 5-level (Man,Group,State,Alliance,System) methods of analysis are quite common, though of course one can go below even the individual-level. A focus on systemic rulesets to the exclusion of others is obviously quite limiting.
Dan,
I’m not sure if ‘systmeic rulesets’ needs to be part of the definition, actually. However, the careful partitions you are making seem to me to be a different kind of academic theosophy. For a broad definition, why wouldn’t the term work, unless you believe in a clear separation of Man & State & System, each operating independently? For instance, I suppose that the term is only limiting if you believe systemic rulesets can be changed without also changing the sub-sub-…-systemic rulesets.