The Generations of War in the Context of Realms and Kinetics
(tdaxp’s note: This is a cross-post of ‘Orientation and Action, Part II: The OODA-PISRR Loop.’ That article is one of two sequels for ‘Go Deep,’ my very first post on 5GW. ‘Go Deep’ is now split up into Orientation and Action, Introduction: On War Since John Boyd and Orientation and Action, Part I: The OODA Loop. The other sequel to ‘Go Deep,’ ‘Dreaming 5th Generation War,’ is the post for which this group blog is named.)
The Observe-Orient-Decide-Act (OODA) loop of John Boyd is not only a model of human cognition.
It is also useful in aligning the generations of modern war within the framework of human cognition
Likewise, the broader Observe-Orient-Decide-Act/Penetrate-Isolate-Subvert-Reorient-Reharmonize Social loop is not only a model of social cognition
Both of these findings can be synthesized by viewing the generations of modern war within the framework of social cognition.
Consider that the second generation of modern war (2GW), based on concentrate of firepower, is the strong-suit of the state in war. Likewise, consider that the fourth generation of modern war (4GW), based on idelogical coherency, is the strong-suit of the insurgent in war.
From this we can place the third generatin of modern war (3GW), based on mobility, in between the state’s and the insurgent’s spheres of influence.
And this makes sense. In Patterns of Conflict, John Boyd describes maneuver warfare as “blitz/guerilla.”
(One might just as easily as say “Global Guerrilla / Panzer General”)
There are two remaining generations of modern war, and both fall outside the realms of the state and non-state. The first generation (1GW), built on total mobilization, was designed for states able to conscript a large fraction of the male population but unable to communicate effectively enough to effective combine firepower. Thus we place 1GW to the left of 2GW, as belonging to an actor which we would describe as a state… almost. (Compare the workings of Napoleonic France to that of a modern state to see how a 1G “state” falls short.)
Likewise, place the fifth generation of modern warfare (5GW) to the right of 4GW. 5GW is the domain of non-states… almost. When a 5GW is used by a state, it’s actually the province of a “state within” that acts as an internal insurgency. The Military-Industrial-Complex devised by President Truman is the work of such a 5GW conspiracy-within-the-state.
Blue Circle encompasses the Realm of the State Red Circle encompasses the Realm of the Non-State
The take-away from this visualization is as follows:
- each ‘higher’ generation of war is less kinetically intense than the one before it.
- Further, states tend to be victorious in areas where intensity is high but not overwhelming — between 2GW and 3GW.
- At the same time, non-states tend to be victorious at low but not underwhelming kinetic intensity — between 3GW and 5GW.
- Finally, 1GW and 5GW fall outside the realms of both the state and the non-state, and into the lands of the proto-state and the state-within.
Thanks to Ryan Luke of Social Engage, and of course my co-authors on this blog, for the questions and criticisms that made this post possible.
Filed in The Vault and tagged John Boyd, Kinetics, OODA, xGW
Interesting outline. A couple of questions occur to me:
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this.
Ryan - Have you read the Intro and Part 1?
Nice "reapplication" of TX.'s cover artwork... :-)
Shane, thanks! I've been waiting for that compliment! :-)
I was trying to place it but couldn't!
Hi Dan,
Sorry for letting this sit here for so long without a response. Not sure if anyone will even see it now.
OK, so I'm busted for not doing my homework. I've now caught up on it though.
I like the idea of generations of war redshifting up the OODA loop. But although it all fits together in a conceptually neat package, I'm not sure how well that package fits reality.
The part that particularly stands out for me is 2GW. I'm completely not conviced that the centre of gravity for an industrial war of attrition is the ability to decide.
Ryan. I'm not either. Do you agree with this introduction?
I don't consider the Centers of Gravity for a particular GW to be that part of the of the OODA. The CoG is the (or a) strength of an actor (e.g. economic capacity / logistics chain, will to fight, leadership center).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_of_gravity_(military)
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/sum03/echevarria.html
Actually, I have always thought of Center of Gravity meaning different things to different Generations.
1GW is the decisive point on the battlefield.
2GW the strength of the opponent that when neutralized or destroyed renders them ineffective. (attrition)
3GW the critical vulnerability that when neutralized or destroyed dislocates the opponent and renders them ineffective. (manuever)
4GW the aspect of will that when lost by the opponent renders them ineffective.
5GW the rule-sets that when disrupted and reset causes the result desired by the 5GW organization?
Gotta work on that last one but to bring it back to the original topic of the post, each generation does seem to become less kinetic in its approach to Center of Gravity.
Or as I've said before about 5GW and kinetics: The kinetics are dispersed. It's not that nothing kinetic is happening, but the indirection (indirect routes between cause and effect) make it seem as if it is "less kinetic." The "Center of Gravity" is where the kinetics come together to cause the primary desired effect; in the case of 5GW, the points attacked are so numerous, disparate, displaced (decentralized), and so forth, it's almost as if the center has been turned inside-out.
Shane has experience with physics...?
I like the idea of dispersed kinetics. What should be the term for that?
It seems there should be analogy to heat (motion) and temperature (dispersed heat).
Arherring...the CoG/xGW comment should be its own post!
Arherring...the CoG/xGW comment should be its own post!
Sorry...for the dupe. I got an error for the first time I submitted:
"Requested Page Could Not be Found"
I like the idea that non-kinetic is actually dispersed kinetics (as opposed to a focused kinetic action).
This should be a separate posted discussion so the topic doesn't get lost.
CGW - Yep, I got my baccalaureate in physics. The way you describe "Center of Gravity" and "dispersion" strike me as contradictory -- or at least inconsistent in context. The 4GW moral attack degrades popular support for a campaign by invalidating its causes and its objectives; a 5GW attack (I believe) would adjust the very perception by which the campaign and its objectives are perceived. And the successful 5GW attack would make the opponent believe they have achieved everything they set out to accomplish...
That's just it, Shane. Neither the 5GW campaign nor the 5GW objectives will be perceived. However, each individual group or person will see personal campaigns and objectives. Person A is in India; Group C is in Russia, Group B is in China, and Person D is in Saudi Arabia: each person's or group's campaigns and objectives will have a center of gravity wherever each is located or at least in clear relationship to each and understood by the actors.
Think of it in terms of attractors. A fixed-point or limit-cycle attractor has a clearly defined "center of gravity." A strange attractor does as well but due to complexity its exact characteristics are quite difficult to discern when too few factors are known. Actors in generations previous to the Fifth could determine their own relationship to the centers of gravity which occurred in those conflicts, and have an understanding of those c.o.g.'s, but as the generations progress (in our model), the understanding grows progressively fuzzier. In the Fifth, the fuzziness of the complexity of the globalizing system promotes a kind of "continuous partial attention" which in turn often promotes an "insularization" of observations and activities. The static of the whole system cannot be well understood, may be frightening or confusing, so each person and most groups turn toward the work immediately before them. There may be a strange attractor, but very few, if any, will be able to determine what it is, and most don't even bother. In fact, most will refuse to believe it exists or, at best, will create a fantasy of one by which to define individual relationship to the system.
Nonetheless, strange attractors -- plural -- will exist, and these will play an important role in 5GW, I think.