There are a few basic premises that should be included in any framework that attempts to differentiate between methods / doctrines / types / generations / gradients of warfare.
1) There must be an internally consistent progression of effectiveness displayed in the framework. For every type of warfare there is at least one corresponding type of warfare that exists to offset it. It may not yet exist or yet have a set theoretical definition, but it must be able to potentially exist and be able to be expressed on the continuum of warfare within the framework.
2) The types of warfare must be able to exist on any type of battlefield.
3) The framework must express an ability to categorize types of warfare in order to determine the position of a type of warfare on a continuum, and suggest the appropriate response to a type of warfare by showing on the continuum the counter to the type of warfare an opponent is employing.
4) Each type of warfare in the framework must be able to be clearly defined at each level of employment be it tactical, operational, strategic or grand strategic. Also, different types of warfare must be able to co-exist at each of these levels.
The above is a good (clear and simple) requirements list.
I saw you mention this elsewhere.
So, XGW can be applied across both Cyberspace and um...MeatSpace? That makes more sense then suggesting CyberWar is only 4GW and beyond.
Are there other battlefield types? I suppose Space perhaps.
The battlefield could be wherever there is the possibility of confrontation and/or conflict between two or more forces. I see it as an almost genetic imperitive. As I look at XGW 0GW is just that, a basic genetic imperitive for survival. Each gradient above that is an evolution to seek advantage over that which has come before.
Look at it this way, in the battlefield of nature some insects like beetles develop armor, some like ants develop mass colonies, some like dragonflies develop speed, some like moths and butterflies develop camoflage or special defenses so that their predators cannot safely prey upon them. The best, however, are the most subtle. The monarch butterfly is toxic and carries bright colors to warn away predatory birds. The viceroy butterfly is not toxic yet when a bird sees a viceroy it avoids it. Why? Because it looks almost exactly like a monarch.
I know that example is an oversimplification of an exceedingly complex system of systems (and the dragonfly is a stretch but it is the fastest and most manueverable insect I could think of) but if XGW works it should work in all possible situations.
Hmmm.... Very thought-provoking post, ARH.
Does (1) imply success Generations must be of increasing effectiveness? That's a deep hole, since "Effectiveness" depends on the metric; 2GW is far more effective than 3GW or 4GW in applying kinetic energy. So (1) creates more questions.
(2) has several terms that belie the context of violence. Is it a prerequisite? (If so, IW is therefore NOT war.) Is a "battlefield" defined by spatial dimensions? Temporal? Both? What about actions?
I'm O.K. with (3), provided you allow more than one dimension. Perhaps something like this.
Finally, I'm not sure the "levels" of conflict add value -- especially since once you get beyond "tactics" (i.e., what you do when you're doing somethin') and "strategy" (what you do when you're doing nothin'), the rest are fabrications of the hierarchy.
Again, a provocative piece. Hopefully Dan-TDAXP will lead the charge for another Nimble Books production so we can codify this in a meatspace pub with a real ISBN.
SD,
#1 implies that the doctrines of the higher gradient will have a functional advantage over the doctrines of the lower gradients. Second gradient doctrines may be better at creating kinetic force but third gradient doctrines dislocate that advantage and in turn apply Force in a more efficient and effective manner.
#2 is indeed meant to imply situations that may not be violent. One of the criticisms of XGW at the fifth generation is that it isn't 'war'. I found an answer for that criticism in Rupert Smith's The Utility of Force (if you haven't read it, do so at your earliest opportunity). Smith argues that the paradigm of interstate industrial warfare (I've been calling it Trinitarian War or TWar in my notes, this is essentially what GMW describes) no longer applies and that we need a new paradigm of War Amongst the People (PWar in my notes) because the state no longer has a monology on the use of Force and the trinitarian progression of peace-crisis-war-resolution no longer applies. Instead General Smith argues that we are continuously criss-crossing between confrontation (that which does not meet the classic definition of 'war') and conflict (the situations where Force is directly applied and does appear to be 'war' or at least warlike). I found this PWar concept to be a perfect fit with XGW and answered the conceptual question of war/notwar. On the basis that an actor is in confrontation (must less conflict) a battlefield can be anywhere, anything, anytime and can be contested using any available means or any doctrine.
#3 Perhaps continuum isn't the best word to use there because, yes, any number of variables should be able to be expressed. What would be a better decription than continuum?
I wanted to include the levels mostly for the second part of #4, "different types of warfare must be able to co-exist at each of these levels." I feel that XGW would be much stronger (as well as make much more sense) if an actor can be tactically at one gradient and strategically at another gradient. For example the in Iraq and Afganistan many of our opponents are engaging us tactically at 0GW. They pick up their AK-47 or set their bomb and essentially as an individual take on the Marines or some other similar target. They might rationalize their actions through ideology but often they rally do it for pay or for social standing (although I've always though messing with Marines is a good way to put your social standing six-feet-under they rationalize that part away as well) However, those who created the ideology or are using it to recruit these followers may be acting strategically with a doctrine in the fourth gradient. Really, if tactical and strategic levels are all that is needed then feel free to accept that limitation. However, I think the possibility of intermediate and higher levels of expressing doctrines should be maintained. It can't hurt and can only strengthen the model.
I hope you guys realize I've gutted the meat from a half dozen draft posts in order to answer these questions (and others throughout the blogosphere this week). I haven't been posting much lately but I have been thinking long and hard about this and saving up drafts and notes. Events just moved faster than I did.
I really like the sound of the above.
3GW opponent does not need to harness his whole economy like a 2GW opponent does. The 3GW opponent uses speed and maneuver as opposed to attrition to take take on (and hopefully defeat) an opponent that manpower-wise could be a magnitude larger. It is a more effective use of time, materials and manpower then the 2GW opponent.
I do think IW is war (or conflict).