Zepundit on 5GW

Posted by Dan tdaxp, 2 Oct 2007

Over at his blog, I wrote:

The qualitative break would be on focus: an 4GW campaign would attempt to weaken some enemy, while a 5GW would attempt to change the rules of the game in which enemies are faced.

That said, the ultimate difference truly is one of degree: every higher generation involves wider dispersion of kinetics.

and Mark responded:

I’m not sold on that. First, I think it’s an arguable trendline ( and you have argued it) that depends on using a particular yardstick for “kinetics”. Secondly, I think there are a number of possibilities for emerging 5GW ( as well as the possibility of 5GW being a varied phenomena) though “shaping the battl;espace” is, I agree, one of them.

Defintions are vital. This blog famously is developing a definition of 5GW — even writing a wiki article on the subject. Without definitions, one is stuck in a William Lind-style monologue, with your main theory ever “emerging” and never useful.

Mark’s post raises the problem that two different things need to be defined: The xGW model and 5GW in particular. The definitions, to be useful, have to explain variation and be falsifiable.

So what next?

Filed in

3 Comments

Curtis Gale Weeks | October 2, 2007 8:02 AM | Reply
an 4GW campaign would attempt to weaken some enemy, while a 5GW would attempt to change the rules of the game in which enemies are faced.

I really think that the idea of co-optation is very big for 5GW. "Hands in the field." Of course, that may be an aspect of changing the rules of the game; or, of a fuller control -- call it, a fuller utilization -- of the battlefield. The type of broad-scale co-optation I envision will also bear on the idea of a broader dispersal of kinetics.

I agree that we need to bore down on the many ideas/posts we've put up, here and on our individual blogs, to isolate xGW and 5GW. I think that doing so with xGW first would be best.

Perhaps PurpleSlog, who likes long lists of features, might make a stab at it? Something beyond what we've already done.

I expect the OODA/xGW schematic would also play a role in the drill-down -- but then we run into the problem of better defining the OODA as a model (a model of what, exactly?)

In any case, a succinct drill-down, or bulleted list of features and qualities, would enable better attacks against the things we write. That in turn might help to stimulate more ideas and more pointed posts for D5GW!

(I have spent plenty of KB attacking various things found in Lind's writing, Hammes', Robb's and Barnett's, and so forth -- and damn, I keep waiting for a meaty post attacking D5GW or my own particular work here. And waiting, and waiting. Would be a nice change of pace, I think.)

purpleslog.wordpress.com | October 3, 2007 12:01 AM | Reply

I posted this at Zen's Site:

States can fight 4GW.

The theory must move beyond Lind. I think Lind considers 4GW as something done by non-state actors against states.

4GW should be thought of as a conflict mode where two main things standout: 1) the full spectrum of weapons used includes things not generally though of as weapons and 2) A shift from the importance of the physical dimension of war to the that of the moral and mental (the physical, and the strategic/operational/tactical still matter but they can be trumped by the moral/mental).

What people normally call 4GW is information warfare using terrorism, guerrilla tactics, and especially psyops and media operations by non-state actors who are fighting primarily against a state opponent. This is what most articles and blogposts are about. So is Hammes's excellent book.

There is no handbook for 4GW by state actors. Yet.

I have been meaning to make this a post for awhile, butI am a procrastinator, so I will type in my thoughts here (maybe I will post a copy at my site so I don't forget).

Those planning for future State 4GW efforts should look to a few things for conflict against other states and/or against non-state actors:

1) The PLA book "Unrestricted Warfare" is a source. It shows glimpses as to what full spectrum weoponization could be. Has anything like this come out of the US National Security establishment of academia?

2) States must re-gain or acquire capabilities in information warfare/propaganda/media operations. Look to politicalwarfare.org to get an idea. Sometimes this is called political warfare . Look to the book
Fighting the War of Ideas like a Real War by J. Michael Waller for ideas (or for a historical perspective The Secret History of PWE: The Political Warfare Executive
by David Garnett).

3) States needs to prepare their citizens, institutions, and rule-sets for fighting 4GW. War is not WW2 or Vietnam redux. States will need the flexibility to utilize netwar organization of a perm or ad-hoc nature in conflict and to not be revolted at information operations.

purpleslog.wordpress.com | October 3, 2007 12:09 AM | Reply
Perhaps PurpleSlog, who likes long lists of features, might make a stab at it? Something beyond what we've already done.

Heh...I have been doing that sort of thing since I could write. I used to do it on line paper notebooks. Now I do it on steno pads, blogs, and word documents. I didn't realize people noticed that though!

In any case, a succinct drill-down, or bulleted list of features and qualities, would enable better attacks against the things we write. That in turn might help to stimulate more ideas and more pointed posts for D5GW!

I do see the logic here. We need to define xGW (1GW through 4GW) the way we see it for the most part, as a reference post that we can link back to and then use that to explain what 5GW is or will be.

Let me think some on this. I have been meaning to do this, but I just keep putting it off.

Leave a comment