XGW as a System for the Classification of Doctrines

I think this is a very good system of descriptions for the stages of XGW.

PS: Now that we have XGW instead of GMW, is there a better replacement for “generation” than “stages of XGW” ?

PPS: Every day I’m further away from GMW is a day I am happier!

Ar: Well done.

I think 4GW still needs a better definition.

“is there a better replacement for “generation” than “stages of XGW” ?”

I like “Category” or “Mode” to remove a timeframe implication.

Also, instead of “previous” use “lesser” or “lower” to remove a timeframe implication.

I will admit, I have never liked the trend toward de-emphasizing time.

These generations, call them what you will, do have a temporal relationship to one another.

…to postulate a generational model is to suggest a general uni-directional development through which different strategies emerge as a consequence of previous strategies which have been employed. A singular generational model need not be applied to the entire history of warfare in order to box certain styles of fighting into specific epochs, and only those epochs, within the history of humanity; rather, a generational model only need show that a given style of fighting has resulted as a consequence of another — and this will usually occur within a specific epoch, or a small time frame, simply because some overlap of generations, or competitive conflict, must occur in order for one style to develop as a consequence of another. [1]

If you remove the temporal aspect, you remove much of the strength of the theory.

In each of these cases, the reason the previous generation fails against the newest generation is simply that the previous generational strategies cannot account for the new dimensions of the conflict, or were not formed to address the new dimensions. Rather, the previous generational strategies were formed to address the dimensions of the generation before, with no leap-frogging to x+2: When the goal is to win and the present exigencies are pressing, the need is only to be one-up, and resources will be targeted accordingly. [ibid.]

Furthermore, there is something I once mentioned more often, but perhaps never clearly enough. In previous discussions, I’ve made use of the concept of “refinement”; i.e., many of the styles of fighting, tactics, strategies, that we now associate with any xGW may have occurred in previous times (say, antecedent to the Peace of Westphalia) but a particular confluence of these within a recent period, in collusion with other factors associated with the environment, have led to a refinement of these into a particular xGW. This consideration reminds me of something Smitten Eagle mentioned in the thread at tdaxp:

Such an approach would allow for the generations of war to coexist in different forms throughout a larger span of history than merely the gunpowder age, yet would also recognize the incompleteness of, say, 2GW styles of war prior to the Industrial Revolution. [2]

To make such broad strokes that would allow us to call a war 2000 years ago the same “type”, “generation”, “mode” — whatever — as one occurring now would, I fear, approach meaninglessness. Why not use “rebellion” and “civil war” and “regicide” as “types”, “generations”, “modes” within xGW then?

We might see that certain “ishness” occurred previously (e.g., some 5GW-ish activities 2000 years ago) but need not call whatever happened then 5GW. Indeed, my general understanding of the xGW includes an understanding that innovations in technology and social structures, etc., during the modern era play an extremely important role in shaping the xGW’s that have occurred. Furthermore, whatever conflict occurred 2000 years ago may have some 5GW-ishnes, some 4GW-ishness, some 3GWishness, and so on, without being any one of these exclusively — i.e., a certain refinement has occurred, or a certain confluence of doctrine, environment, innovation, learning, that has produced the current xGW cycle.

The wish to eliminate the temporal aspects often seems to me to be a wish for theosophy: or, a desire to create an orthodoxy for…some reason? While I understand the need for definition in any theory that would make that theory useful, I do not understand the need to pigeon-hole the entire history of warfare into the 5 Pillars. (so to speak)

[1] “X vs X: Boom and the Generations in Conflict”

[2] Smitten Eagle on “5GW as the Event Horizon”

Curtis,

I think if we were to plot out conflicts on a timeline and assign XGW classifications to each of them, we would probably discover that certain Generations ‘clump’ together. (This is a very simplistic concept, but I have a point). It might even look a lot like overlaid bell curves. But as Taleb would be quick to point out, conflict is from Extremistan not Mediocristan, and the bell curve doesn’t really apply.

I think XGW needs to be independent of a timeline because each conflict is unique and seperate from others. A 5GW conflict may be a refinement of another conflict a thousand years ago (and I like that concept), but the principles of their doctines will still remain the same, both will still be 5GW and both will still be seperate conflicts. It is also true, that certain dominant technologies and social/political/industrial conditions will tend to produce conflicts with doctrines at different levels of the framework in different time periods, but any level of XGW should be possible at any given point in history or in the future.

If you remove the timeline aspect, you remove any reason for developing 5GW as we’ve come to describe and define it.

We can then say that most of our current enemies are 4GW, as Purpleslog recently did, but without any reason to suggest that that 5GW will be necessary to defeat them. We could instead suggest a “new and improved 3GW” — perhaps 3GW in the form of individual blitzkrieg actors as John Robb has seemed to suggest in his version of GG-as-5GW — or even a “new and improved 2GW” as the DoD wants to create with its higher-tech weaponry requests.

That’s all good and well if those are the best approaches toward dealing with present conflicts.

Is the conflict now over “timeline” merely a conflict I’ve previously discussed: I.e., that too many theorists have believed in a strict timeline of 1GW-4GW that has existed, neatly segmenting portions of modern history into those classifications? We can argue against such a strict configuration without obliterating 5GW theory entirely by jettisoning the temporal aspects.

Or else, we will soon be finding 4GW’s that occurred in the past which were not a response to 3GW opposition; or, 5GW’s that were not a response to 4GW’s; or 2GW’s that were not a response to 1GW’s; and so forth. In which case (if these “higher-grade” or X+1’s are not temporally related to what has gone immediately before, or not responses), then, as I’ve said, we have no reason to believe that the current 4GW force structures now opposing us have any real bearing on future 5GW.

“Or else, we will soon be finding 4GW’s that occurred in the past which were not a response to 3GW opposition; or, 5GW’s that were not a response to 4GW’s; or 2GW’s that were not a response to 1GW’s; and so forth.”

Indeed, I fully expect that we would. Just because 3GW(+) is the appropriate response to 2GW doesn’t that it will automatically be the response to 2GW. As an example, the allies in WW2 didn’t engage in a campaign along 4GW principles, they embarked upon a massive 2GW effort that the 3GW Germans, even with the advantage of their superior doctrine, couldn’t match. Higher Generation does not guarantee success and lower Generation does not guarantee defeat, but higher Generation does present a clear advantage and lower Generation does carry a clear disadvantage.

In truth I get what you are saying. Temporal considerations and a timeline are two different things to me. One is a matter of relative location and the other is a historical arrangement. I think we can work our way to an agreement.

I’ve responded at tdaxp on the issue of “grade” and temporal considerations. In a way, these ideas are not new but more a clarification of things — perhaps.

I’m not for throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

However, I have to respond to this:

Indeed, I fully expect that we would. Just because 3GW(+) is the appropriate response to 2GW doesn’t that it will automatically be the response to 2GW. As an example, the allies in WW2 didn’t engage in a campaign along 4GW principles, they embarked upon a massive 2GW effort that the 3GW Germans, even with the advantage of their superior doctrine, couldn’t match.

Saying that one side fell back to an intensification of x-1GW is not at all the same as saying that x+1GW, when it does form, does not form in response to xGW. I.e., why would a force develop x+1GW if not as a response to xGW? What would be the impetus?

“…why would a force develop x+1GW if not as a response to xGW? What would be the impetus?”

That is a good question.

I think there could be a material component. At each x+1 the practitioner gains the ability to do more with less. It could be that a group facing a 1 or 2GW opponent doesn’t have the ability to mount (or failed at) a 1-3GW response, as a result they were forced to develop a 4GW doctrine in order to compensate for their disadvantage.

It could also be that there is a leadership component. Faced with a 1 or 2GW opponent a charismatic/intelligent leader may create a doctrine that skips to x+2 or even x+3GW, not as a compensation but through insight.

Each of these Generations is, in effect, a dislocation of the previous Generation (X-1).

Arherring,

While I can imagine the possibility that x+2 could develop for the reasons you have given in your last comment, those developments would be a fluke in xGW terms unless we expand xGW to become something we haven’t previously.

It could also be that there is a leadership component. Faced with a 1 or 2GW opponent a charismatic/intelligent leader may create a doctrine that skips to x+2 or even x+3GW, not as a compensation but through insight.

Vaguely speaking, theoretically speaking, the development of a 4GW or 5GW force to fight a 1GW or 2GW force would mean that the 4 or 5 G is still seen as being superior to the 1 or 2 G by the “charismatic/intelligent” leader. So there is still a progression or linear and temporally significant development. In this case, the xGW framework would still progress in A-B-C-D fashion, but that particular epoch’s xGW would not match our own modern progression: the “4GW or 5GW” of that force would really be 3GW within that epoch even if we describe it in terms of our own modern xGW as 4GW or 5GW.

Additionally, given such an emergence (i.e., as a result of superior intelligence or charisma or both) we would have to acknowledge that that epoch’s 3GW (which is our 4GW or 5GW) would be capable of really defeating that epoch’s 1GW or 2GW. As has been mentioned lately, numbers and proficiency would make a large difference, since a 2GW force can actually defeat an inferior 3GW force (by our own xGW definitions). One would need to consider, as I have, whether the individual segments of any of these forces — i.e., the people actually fighting — could make the leap of x+2, given the fact that their experience, perhaps from their own past fighting as well as their experience of the 1G or 2G force opposing them, would allow such a leap-frogging effect to be efficient — especially also given the fact that their opponent would have much more experience fighting at 1G or 2G, would already have the organizational and civilizational advantages of 1G or 2GW, etc. I have my doubts about this. In fact, except in the case of a fluke, chance, etc., the leap-frogging force would more often fail, I suspect, which would invalidate the general working theory that x+A is superior to x or x-A in every historical case (even if the particular forces may be sloppy or exceptional cases.)

In fact, the push to make our 6-stage description of xGW extend throughout history reminds me of a topic Dan once broached when discussing homosexuality: “Historical Uniformism v Historical Positivism, or, Did Homosexuality Exist in Ancient Greece?”. Are we to assume that the grades of warfare, 0GW-5GW, are the same in all historical contexts as they appear now? If not, then the descriptive push may well describe past war efforts but without supporting — in fact, invalidating — the general xGW framework and the usefulness of xGW: we can easily describe efforts, but so what?

Excellent points Curtis,

Like I said before, I get what you are saying. I agree (and you make this point in the most eloquent way in Triangulating Clausewitz and Boyd). XGW is indeed much more broad in its utility than just as a system for classification of doctrine, but that is what I was doing in this post. That said, as a classification system the temporal aspect is almost irrelevant.

Everybody else, read my post and then read this post:

http://www.dreaming5gw.com/2008/05/triangulating_clausewitz_and_b.php

If you don’t read both, you are only going to understand a fraction of XGWs potential.