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:

Foxkeh banners for Firefox 2
 
IE 7 at Microsoft

Disclaimers

The views expressed by contributors to Dreaming 5GW are entirely their own and may not reflect the views of other contributors or the general editor.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by
Arherring
published on
August 4, 2007 7:23 PM.

Another BIG Welcome!
was the previous entry in this blog.

Perusing a Conspiracy Nutjob’s Website: “The Biggest Secret”
is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Site

Powered by Movable Type 4.01

Hosted by LivingDot

AddThis Social Bookmark Button
Creative
Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

What is the nature of the secrecy or invisibility of Fifth Generation Warfare?

I have been thinking lately about the idea that 5GW will be secret, or invisible because it is hard to distinguish what is 5GW and what is not. I have also considered, at length, the concept that a 5GW campaign will function at a strategic level that by nature will also be hard to observe, while operationally and tactically it will appear to be acting at a lower rung on the XGW ladder (if at all). I have seen this type of security described before as security through obscurity. Fundamentally speaking, I am not completely happy with that approach. While it may be effective in most cases security through obscurity is essentially a passive defense. Such passive defense is most similar to camouflage or mimicry and while blending into your surroundings, or resembling something you are not, may be effective at some level once that veil is pierced the organization is no longer able to operate. This is why I feel an active defense is something that should be an essential component of 5GW theory.

How it should work:

Fundamentally speaking the 5GW organization should operate by proxy at every possible opportunity. Ideally, there should also be one or more levels of cutouts between the proxies and 5GW organizations. At every opportunity the 5GW organization should be isolated from its operations with its directives and orders moving through highly specialized and designated channels that, brutally and bluntly speaking, when eliminated will leave nothing but dead ends for anyone seeking to unravel a 5GW campaign.

Why it needs to work this way:

An organization using fifth generation warfare undertakes operations in order to provoke a specific reaction or result. It does this best by influencing the opposing aspects of a situation. In short, it works on the offensive and defensive (perhaps also on the neutral) sides of a conflict and plays all ends against the middle. Remember, the result is the goal of the 5GW organization. To best accomplish this the various sides must never realize that they are being manipulated much less that there is an organization working on both sides of a conflict. They must believe they are acting of their own will. They must believe their responses are in their own best interest and must not realize that interest and the reaction to that interest has been carefully conditioned. Secrecy is essential to reach the most optimum conclusion.

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Laying the Foundations Part 5: Security Through Obscurity?.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/159.

4 Comments

The question, however, is how this “influence” and “conditioning” will occur.

Arherring, do you think there be a difference depending upon if the 5GW action was a big system perpetuation or it it was a small nudge?

I think it would be easier to maintain secrecy using a small number of actions (directly or via proxies) to nudge, then doing a large-effect action (which would have to be proxies via lots of cut-outs).

Arherring said:

Curtis and PurpleSlog,

My thinking has been moving away from the 5GW organzation itself directly causing the system perturbations and more toward creating the conditions for system perturbations (small or large, the size and number of the perturbations is whatever is most effective to achieve the desired result) by influencing its proxies. The proxies are the targets of the manipulation.

Arherring, I think that (the indirect approach) is the right approach.

Leave a comment