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 thing that I have always tried to keep in the forefront of my thoughts as I ponder the theory and doctrine of Fifth Generation of Warfare is to keep, for the most part, technology out of the picture. As I see the Generational Warfare Model, technology has virtually nothing to do with the Generational level of a force. The doctrine of a Generation has nothing to do with its tools of war. Doctrine drives technology. Technology does not drive doctrine.
So what does this mean for 5GW?
I am putting this in with the other ‘Foundations’ articles because I think this is an essential consideration to keep in mind. Many are guilty (myself included. I, like many in the States, are gadget-oriented) of looking at the latest and greatest in technology and waxing rhapsodic about how this is going to change the face of war. This is a grave error. If technology drove doctrine we would have to re-invent the art of war with each new weapon.
Technology does not drive doctrine!
This applies even to the internet with all of its myriad abilities to connect people, satellite television with its broad reach, and cell phones with their ability to quickly transfer information. All of these examples of growing and evolving technology are merely tools. In themselves they do not define or create 5GW theory or doctrine. True, tech makes the 5GW battlefield more complex. Tech offers 5GW greater reach as it manipulates systems and pursues goals. Tech offers better predictive modeling and forecasting. However, none of these, not one, actually has anything to do with how 5GW works. 5GW effects are felt through multiple domains: social, economic, political, military and everything in between. These domains are all connected even without technology and it is with those connections that the Fifth Generation warriors will operate. As a result, Fifth Generation Warriors will push technology in directions today we can only imagine.
Posted by Arherring on Jan 6, 2007 06:30 PM
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Laying the Foundations Part 3: Technology.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/55.
2 Comments
Very good point. Doctrine is relatively technology-independent. 3GW was invented in the trenches, became famous on the European planes, and even now is applied by “global guerrilla” theorists. 4GW has existed at least since Rome and will continue into the future. Fiction is full of 5GW-style plots — some not even involving electricity!
Arherring,
When I first read this post, I was short on time and refrained from commenting because my initial reaction was one of strong disagreement. There were too many points to address. On reading it the second time, I think I see better where I agree and where I disagree.
You know I have spent a lot of time thinking of the generational model of warfare, including a post on the generations considered through the framework of the OODA in which I tied general observational capacity to the evolving generations. Many things have increased observational capacity, not only technology; but technology has played its not insignificant role. In fact, I’ve even suggested that the generational framework evolves, one generation after the next, due not only to the intergenerational conflict but also to the changing environment — of which, technology is a major part. Generally when I think of 5GW, I think it is emergent, or a style of fighting that will emerge given the right preconditions. Again, I tend to think of technological development (not only its level of advancement, but also its particular usage frequency, etc.) as being one of several important preconditions.
I think however that I can see an agreement with you when I consider your use of the word, “drive / driven.” To say that a thing emerges is to say it is the result of confluences, confluences of many factors and forces, not one of which ‘drives’ that thing alone.
On a perhaps lesser point: You know also that I’ve often suggested that many particular maneuvers and tactics have existed for a long time but gain greater importance, or move into prominence, in a changing milieu. I do not think we should confuse looking at individual tactics which may have always been used, even if only supplementally, with looking at 5GW which will bring them all together in a particular, focused way. The gray area is where they have been used together in the past by someone quite intent on a specific outcome but who never utilized such a process again or taught others to do so (if only by example).
A side example of your reasoning, following from your list of Internet, satellite, cell phones: Just because certain weapons systems and technologies have existed does not mean that everyone with access to them actually used them for warfare! If they ‘drove’ a doctrine of warfare, why would they only drive some actors but not others? But they might make the emergence of a doctrine more or less likely.