How should the term “5GW” be used?

From what I see here this is closest to pointing at a tree, or at best counting all of the trees in the back yard and saying “This is a forest.”

This may be a 5GW operation, but it is not a 5GW campaign. In a 5GW campaign this is part of a larger design and the problems in this industry are leverage to induce action on the part of the target. I don’t really see anything from Robb about what action this is supposed to induce. What Robb is talking about seems to be disruption for the sake of disruption. That fits for his GGs, but not for states.

How about filling in some of the blanks by offering more than rhetorical questions, Dan!

I would go a step further than Arherring has gone and say this is most certainly not a 5GW operation, even. Why? It’s in the open, everyone knows about it (at least the key players on each side know, but also those of us who have now read the article!) The open maneuvers allow just the sort of countermeasures discussed in the article John Robb has linked; Iran is already working to offset the effect. Whether they are successful or not hardly matters for a designation of “5GW” or “not 5GW.” Furthermore, as one commenter in that thread reckons — and as Robb gleefully acknowledges — such a move by the U.S. could create a lot of blowback: another point against this maneuver’s being some sort of peg in a multi-domain approach.

Look, using economic warfare is nothing new, and in a case like this I see some basic analogies with operating a long-term siege or long-term blockades from the past. In fact, the whole of GG theory, or at least the systems-disruption aspect of it (which is a major aspect of it), is quite related to old siege warfare. Only the fortress walls have moved. I suppose that some of the basic strategies used to survive ye Old Timey sieges would also work in surviving GG’s.

If not, how should errors such as this be corrected and/or highlighted?

You’ve already highlighted it, here. As for correcting it, I suspect you’ll only fail if you try to correct at the source. Robb has a tendency to claim theft! of anything which seems remotely related to his theory of Global Guerrillas (ex.1, ex. 2) or else coopt ideas (as in, Lind’s generational warfare model) — or, really, it’s probably often both at once: He lets others do a lot of the building, claims they’re stealing his ideas, then changes his ideas to coopt and incorporate new little nuggets he’d not previously considered. He has, for instance, called GG 4GW & 5GW, while claiming,

Whether you call these developments [GG] 4GW on steroids or the start of a 5th generation, it just doesn’t matter. [link]

Why doesn’t it matter? Because, as I’ve written in a recent post, Robb is looking at static and trying to find definition. This does not mean that what he’s seeing doesn’t exist, but it’s a bit like looking at clouds and finding multiple shapes. As long as he keeps the definitions of 4GW and 5GW and GG as open and fluid as possible, then any ultimately emergent reality can be lumped into those groups; and so, he ensures that GG will be whatever happens.

What Robb is talking about seems to be disruption for the sake of disruption. That fits for his GGs, but not for states.

and

As long as he keeps the definitions of 4GW and 5GW and GG as open and fluid as possible, then any ultimately emergent reality can be lumped into those groups; and so, he ensures that GG will be whatever happens.

I agree completely. I was just checking to make sure that I hadn’t gone crazy. :-)

First, let me say that I’ve enjoyed the work done on this site immensely. Secondly, Dan, I’ve equally enjoyed reading the polite, supportive conversations between you and John. ;-) Now, on to the above…
Perhaps the only way his first usage aligns with the understanding of 5GW espoused by you three is that it is unobservable. If by following otherwise ostensibly sound (defensible) market practices (that is, outside the realm of economic warfare) a state is able to cause in another state, say, tertiarily (or even more removed), changes in their military stance…then, well, that usage may be correct. I seem to remember a graphic a la TDAXP with arrows moving up the OODA… I posted a reply about pharmaceutical companies having waged, and won, 5GW campaigns based on the unobservability trait. Who knows, look at Dubai - it’s possible that their rising regional financial status eventually morphs into something they want to actively, militarily, defend in the region. Could that be the end-game of some of our, or others’, fiscal policies?
More some other time about the spirtual stuff of your other posts… For some reason, Kierkegaard’s “…for faith is just this paradox…a belief on the strength of the absurd…” from Fear and Trembling popped into my head each time I read them. It’s been ten years since I read that book - must revisit.
Again, keep your thumbs in it!

On Robb’s use of the term, we have two conflicting statements in the same thread:

It is also a good example of how states can use 5th generation warfare to their own advantage

Break the market, we lose.

The second was given in response to a comment by another to the effect that causing such turmoil in the oil market, via the effort to sabotage Iran’s economy, could produce negative reactions for the actor! Yet somehow that effort is also seen as something that works to the advantage of the actor.

By keeping the so-called ‘global guerrillas’ as nebulous, Robb need never contemplate the possibility that all the systems disruptions caused by those imagined loci will produce blowback for them. He must do so, because his theory hinges upon unending systems disruption caused by those GG’s, who are able to operate in perfect freedom, with access to all available data in the ‘open source environment’ — built largely through the networks erected and protected by the equally nebulous ‘state’ — without ever once needing to consider how their own efforts may be causing negative feedback aimed at themselves! Should they consider such a thing, they might limit their attacks (thus securing some measure of resilience for the state); or else, if they simply fail to consider the potential for blowback, they might self-destruct.

—————

Isaac,

I’m glad you like the site!

is that it is unobservable

Did you mean, if it were unobservable, it might be 5GW? But the article in question, not to mention John Robb’s analysis, publicly make the point that this is a concerted effort: that ‘concert’ is basically showing the enemy and anyone else that this is one prong in a multi-pronged approach. If it is observable as such, then it can either be mitigated or it can be turned around on the original actor. (For instance, I seem to recall a mention of China in that article, a significant role, and I can very easily see Iran using China’s interest as well as the U.S. economic efforts, to convince China that this is where the line must be drawn for ‘American Hegemony’: NO FURTHER!)

But I once did contemplate the same sort of 5GW hiding; this time in terms of China, in a post and comments at my blog Phatic Communion: “Boot on Unrestricted War”. Basically, China’s efforts in Africa and Latin America, etc., could be seen as a natural desire to expand economically and secure resources but act as cover for other goals.

but act as cover for other goals. — Hah, well not only cover, but produce other effects besides merely the securing of resources and natural management of an economy!

Isaac,

I’m glad you’ve enjoyed the conversation! The latest installment is now up. :-)

Curtis,

By keeping the so-called ‘global guerrillas’ as nebulous, Robb need never contemplate the possibility that all the systems disruptions caused by those imagined loci will produce blowback for them. He must do so, because his theory hinges upon unending systems disruption caused by those GG’s, who are able to operate in perfect freedom, with access to all available data in the ‘open source environment’ — built largely through the networks erected and protected by the equally nebulous ‘state’ — without ever once needing to consider how their own efforts may be causing negative feedback aimed at themselves! Should they consider such a thing, they might limit their attacks (thus securing some measure of resilience for the state); or else, if they simply fail to consider the potential for blowback, they might self-destruct.

Brilliant.