Working Definition V. 2.3

If that’s the definition then I’ll add that the seminal work of 5GW has to be Unrestricted Warfare by Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, written in 1999.

I agree that Unrestricted Warfare has a great deal of interesting points as a precursor for 5GW thought, especially in the attempt to create a definition (though this is by no means the finalized definition) of Fifth Generation Warfare. Thanks for bringing that into the conversation Scalefree.

Should the definition require that the actor not be recognized as an actor, or as a significant actor?

Such as,

An emergent theory of warfare premised upon clandestine manipulation…

Question: does the US’s increasing reliance on D5E over C4I indicate a shift towards 5GW?

What’s D5E?

D5E is Destruction, Degradation, Denial, Disruption, Deceit & Exploitation (see CJCSI 3211.01C, JOINT POLICY FOR MILITARY DECEPTION). Basically it means that instead of using coordination & control over our own forces (C4I) as the primary means of winning battles, we’ll now try to win by making the enemy unable or unwilling to fight effectively.

C4E and D5E appear to be variations of 3GW — D5E in particular seems very close to blitzkrieg.

I’m going to agree with Dan’s assessment and go a step further to say that D5E is a repackaged 2GW model for a force that thinks it is 3GW. Note that most of the Ds involve force on force whereas true manuever doctrine fights to move instead of moves to fight .

With that in mind, the answer to your question Scalefree is an unqualified No.

You seem to be saying this based on your impression of the meaning & application of the words, not familiarity with the actual doctrine. Is there anyone reading this who isn’t just guessing what D5E is about, who’d care to comment?

Scalefree,

Trust me, I do my homework.

D5E is a concept for a 2GW force that thinks it is 3GW. It may be ‘weaponized’ information but force is still force and the U.S. Military still thinks the only proper use for force is to directly confront another force. This attitude is self-evident in the use of the terms Destruction, Degradation, and, Disruption.

In 5GW doctrine you wouldn’t meet propaganda with more propaganda however integrated it is into your military actions, you’d change the system and make the propaganda either irrelevant or to serve your own purpose. So, while I applaud the D5E concept for at least thinking outside of the borders of a battlefield it is not a move toward 5GW.

Scalefree,

A crucial aspect of 5GW theory — well, mine anyway ;) — is this: that utilizing information dissemination is less an effort to mislead, confuse, deny, destroy your foe, or anything similar to these, and more an effort to guide not only your foe but also your allies and others within the system being affected. I’ve used the phrase hands in the field quite often when writing about this subject; the creation of data points is really a manipulation of the observable environment which will lead the activities of all relevant players in the theater. So for instance, rather than try to deny your enemy any sort of footing for moral or political cohesion and influence, you would supply these as well as achievable goals for your enemy; he will happily go that direction, but in doing so, he will alter the environment in such a way that downstream effects which he never foresaw unfold rather than what he originally intended. (He may appear to achieve some cherished goals along the way — this keeps him going — but because there are so many other strands being affected outside his observational range, the longer term outcome will be quite unlike his cherished dream. If he even remembers that dream by that point.) And so on. So these hands in the field are enemies, foes, bystanders and civilians, reporters, and so forth, all changing the system from their own particular vantage points and causing the system to become something that none of them (probably!) entirely anticipated.

Certain aspects of D5E have developed in the way my theory of 5GW has developed: as a result of looking at the theater and realizing that information dissemination — which I’d rather call data creation — greatly affects warfare operations in our contemporary world. However, when information warfare / dissemination / etc. is considered only supplemental or merely one prong in a multi-prong effort, the theory veers from 5GW. I also think that some intrinsic, foundational assumptions between the two are quite different; for instance, there appears to be an assumption of controllability (of information levels, data points) in D5E, whereas I look at 5GW as a matter of influence & confluence within a field of static.

Arherring,

I can see where the definition is too broad. This concept of “hands in the field” or of guiding actors — your enemies, friends, etc., who are quite willing to do whatever it is they will be doing and may act passionately to further their goals, and will in fact be the ones doing most of what gets done — should be included in the definition, I think.

Curtis,

I see where you are coming from I’m just not sure how tobest work it into the definition as it reads right now.

An emergent theory of warfare premised upon clandestine manipulation, by proxy(?) of multiple economic, political, social and military forces in multiple domains to effect positional changes in systems and achieve a consilience of effects to leverage a specific goal or set of circumstances.

Or maybe,

An emergent theory of warfare premised upon clandestine manipulation of multiple economic, political, social and military forces in multiple domains. This manipulation, performed by proxies and agents, is designed to effect positional changes in systems and achieve a consilience of effects to leverage a specific goal or set of circumstances.

Is that sort of the idea you had in mind?

Hmmmm…I’ll work from the definition in the post:

• An emergent theory of warfare premised upon manipulation of multiple actors in multiple domains, via the creation and presentation of actionable and persuasive data (to include both information data and material data), to produce fundamental changes in systems through the willful activities of those actors (i.e., by creating a confluence of effects which will lead to a self-sustaining and resilient system.)

Heh, I’ll admit I changed a lot of it! I’m running out of time at the moment, so I’ll need to return to explain my omissions and changes in detail!

I suppose to make it rock-solid, the “creation and presentation of actionable and persuasive data” should not be assumed to be the sole province of 5GW effectors. I.e., “the willful activities of those actors” being influenced will be most of the “creation and presentation…”

It would seem that initial conditions might need to be created by the 5GW effectors, if only to get the ball rolling; thereafter, the influenced actors would be creating and presenting the data.

‘Course, the working definition I’ve given does not imply this one way or another, really, since I read the clause from “via” to the parenthesis after “data” as a kind of stand-alone modifier of “manipulation” and do not say anywhere that the manipulation originates directly from the 5GW org/effectors.

Curtis, some of that is a lot different from how I have been thinking and some of it is how I should have been thinking all along. I’m going to go ahead and respond before you explain you own thinking in greater detail (I’m looking forward to that so please do so) because I want to get these ideas down before they fade away.

First off,

An emergent theory of warfare premised upon manipulation of multiple actors in multiple domains…

I’ve always seen the manipulation being of the systems or the forces within the systems. Here you seem to be advocating influence of actors in the systems. I don’t think this is flawed in some way but it does assume an actor exists to be influenced.

Second,

…via the creation and presentation of actionable and persuasive data…to produce fundamental changes in systems through the willful activities…

I see what you want to do with this and I tried to work the concept in with the consideration of a consilient effect, but I think you are going to confuse people into thinking it is about propaganda. Plus, I’m hesitant to say that 5GW influence should be confined to data of some kind.

Third,

creating a confluence of effects which will lead to a self-sustaining and resilient system

This I really do like, and honestly should have been in the definition from the beginning as it reminds me of some of my first thinking on 5GW, Rule-set - System Perturbation (5GW campaign) - New (Resilient) Rule-Set. “Confluence of effects” is sort of what I was trying to get after with consilient effect. In this I think we are thinking along the same lines.

Arherring,

;) I should be away from the computer at this point, but I’m really getting into this dialogue! But this will be the last I can comment until sometime Monday.

On your second point: I think I look at ‘data’ differently than you do, which seems to be causing some of the confusion. Take a look at this distinction between information and data from Wikipedia:

The words, information and data, are used interchangeably in many contexts. However, they are not synonyms. For example, according to Adam M. Gadomski’s observation (1993), data are everything that is/can be processed and information are data which describe a physical or abstract domain.

So you have used ellipses to omit what I considered integral to my definition as a clarifier! Information data would be media — whether broadcast media, books, documents, conversations about the world, movies — but material data would be the physical environment or observations of material realities that can be processed — like a blown up bridge or a cloud of noxious gas descending on a populace! So the section which you take as being too much like a description of propaganda would only be propaganda from my p.o.v. if physical realities are also propagandistic! (I tried to make it as broad as possible for the definition although also felt the parenthetical section would clarify my meaning.)

On your first point:

I’ve always seen the manipulation being of the systems or the forces within the systems.

These are largely non-existent entities; i.e., they are abstractions. The people are the system, the people are the forces. Imagine trying to manipulate a gun without a person present, for an attempt to manipulate a force! True, there are non-human forces also within the system (like the weather, and so forth); but to manipulate such things with will and determination, a person must be present to manipulate them! So the focus is on the actors. All this ties into the OODA process.

We seem to have been typing at the same time there.

Ok, I’m going to concede both points because I can’t find fault in your logic (and sorry about the ellipses).

On the other hand, I will ask that on the subject of data and information, do you think the data/information has to be true or just have the appearance of truth? Also, your definition speaks of the creation and presentation of actionable and persuasive data and information. What about the supression of data and information?

I think that material data always has the appearance of truth, if it has any appearance whatsoever; information data, not always — even if it is true! I think both will work better if they are true and have the appearance of truth; however, the subject of ‘truth’ is a complex subject, and de-contextualized truths, which are partial, or re-contextualized truths, which are partial, may lead to generalizations which are quite false, even if the data is true and has the appearance of truth.

By partiality, I mean: they are true, but they are not the whole picture. We see examples of this type of data in action all the time. For instance, certain pseudoscientists will extend a statistical fact into a universal ‘truth’: Because 95% of males tend to think in such-and-such way, all males can safely be considered to think in that way, for the purpose of structuring a classroom or education strategy; or, females; or, butterflies (if they think, that is!! ;) ) In politics: Just because 20 Democrats are total idiots, all Democrats are total idiots; or, Republicans; or, Evangelical Ministers. Advertising: Since Tiger Woods is one-helluva great golfer, his opinion on which credit card company is the best must also be good; there is a case of seeing a ‘goodness’ that is actual but partial (domain-specific) and extending it into universality or at least into a new context.

What about the supression of data and information?

This is a good question; however, I think we are seeing, more and more, that attempting to suppress data is not cost effective once that data already exists. Someone will talk, or broadcast a cellphone photo, or leak documents, or reverse engineer a manufactured product, and all our expenditures will be for naught. This reminds me of the post on Steve DeAngelis’ consideration that “Prevention is Better than Mitigation.” The best way to “suppress data” is to preempt its becoming.

I do suppose, however, that forestalling its revelation once it exists, if only for a short time, might be important. For instance, other data which will be required for a confluential process may not yet exist, and the revelation of the existing data could lead the system into a less-than-beneficial dynamic as other confluences occur! However, I don’t suppose that any 5GW campaign should ever depend upon absolute and long-lasting suppression of data. This doesn’t mean that managing data will require so-called “transparency,” but rather that 5GW orgs will need to assume data will become rather quickly available to others and will need to be contextualized so that generalizations formed by others — their understanding of that data — benefits the 5GW campaign by shaping the activities of those actors.

I once wrote:

The 5GWarrior does not subvert fingertip-feeling or confuse it. He utilizes it. The target has a true fingertip-feeling, but he is put in the position of having that particular hunch by the 5GWarrior. Part of the positioning is the introduction of data which then causes a “click” in the psyche of the target. The data can be a meme, and so influence rather directly; or, the data can be a physical manifestation of power created by the person who has been influenced by a meme. Such data can play into ignorances, biases, and bigotries, much in the same way that the introduction of a new product on the market can play into insecurities, fetishes, and hungers. Hunches are sometimes proved wrong — too late. (So when I say, true fingertip-feeling, I’m relying on this aspect of hunches.) In order to influence the largest number of people however, the data must be true if partial. Its partiality may serve to confuse in a larger system, and debate may then paralyze the target; but it is certainly true from some perspective, or the debate would be resolved rather quickly.

— so I suppose I haven’t much changed my understanding of ‘5GW and data’, such as it is! However, I would extend the thought beyond a consideration of creating paralysis, into a consideration of…creating rule-sets? creating consilience? creating harmonies?

I don’t suppose that any 5GW campaign should ever depend upon absolute and long-lasting suppression of data. This doesn’t mean that managing data will require so-called “transparency,” but rather that 5GW orgs will need to assume data will become rather quickly available to others and will need to be contextualized so that generalizations formed by others — their understanding of that data — benefits the 5GW campaign by shaping the activities of those actors.

A brilliant point, and this gets to what “Observation” cognitively means. If I’m understanding Curtis correctly, a 5G force should be less concerned with the disclosure of “brute facts,” and more concerned with the ability of observers to assemble those facts into a theory of the 5G force’s existence.

into a theory of the 5G force’s existence.

Or, into a theory of the 5G force’s liking, if the data does not specifically and directly concern the existence of that force. As I wrote that, I had also in mind the data concerning the 5GWarrior’s existence, which seemed to need consideration for any consideration of suppression of data.