Mark of “Zenpundit”:http://zenpundit.blogspot.com and Dan of “tdaxp”:http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com have been having a brilliant brainstorming session on the possibilities of graduating 4th Generation Warfare (4GW) to a new level. So far these are the posts to watch:
* “UNTO THE FIFTH GENERATION OF WAR”:http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2005/07/unto-fifth-generation-of-war.html
* “Go Deep (OODA and the Rainbow of Generational Warfare)”:http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/07/18/go-deep-ooda-and-the-rainbow-of-generational-warfare.html
* “FIFTH GENERATION WAR IN THE OODA LOOP”:http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2005/07/fifth-generation-war-in-ooda-loop-dan.html
Here is a taste:
bq. A strong possibility exists that given successive generations of warfare tend to drive ” deeper” into enemy territory, that 5GW will mean systemic liquidation of enemy networks and their sympathizers, essentially a total war on a society or subsection of a society. There is no where ” deeper” for 5GW to go but here. At the high tech end 5GW would be precisely targeted to winnow out ” the bad guys” in a souped-up version of Operation Phoenix but at the low-tech end we could see campaigns that would be indiscriminate, democidally-oriented death squad campaigns that shred 4GW networks by the same actuarially merciless logic that led the Allies to firebomb German and Japanese cities in WWII.
bq. …The 4th Generation of War redshifts deeper into the OODA loop. It slides into the “Observation” realm. If traditional war centered on an enemy’s physical strength, and 4GW on his moral strength, the 5th Generation of War would focus on his intellectual strength. A 5th Generation War might be fought with one side not knowing who it is fighting. Or even, a brilliantly executed 5GW might involve one side being completely ignorant that there ever was a war. It’s like the old question of what was the perfect robbery: we will never know, because in a perfect robbery the bank would not know that it was robbed.
Very interesting stuff.
I wonder if they’re familiar with the concept of “unrestricted warfare” first conceived by Chinese Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui in 1999, which includes: terrorism, economic & diplomatic warfare, computer hackers, and other unconventional warfare.
A couple links:
“Jane’s Intelligence Review”:http://www.janes.com/regional_news/asia_pacific/news/jir/jir000223_1_n.shtml
“Global Security. org”:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1999/WEBRES4.htm
_[I edited that link for you Curtis. - Younghusband]_
Curtis ( and YH)
Thank you for these links !!!
Yes, I have heard about the concept though I have not seen a translation of their work ( and actually half-forgot it to be frank).
What I can tell you is that these Chinese Colonels sparked a classified course in Aysmmetric Warfare concepts at the request of the DoD at ( I believe) National Defense U. The prof who developed the course asked to use some material I had posted on H-Net to which I agreed. Unfortunately she was not permitted to share the syllabus or course material with me – so I’m not sure exactly what or how my ideas were interpreted or in what context other than asymmetric warfare by China was suddenly a very big concern for the pentagon at the time.
Thank you. This was a topic I really ought to have pursued at the time and never did. The reminder was useful !
Intriguing. However, I foresee the emergence of entirely decentralized mass movements in the coming decades resulting from severe cultural dislocation. Quite simply, a “cause” may consist of many individual groups with no overarching coordination or even communication, each working to the advancement of the cause, ie, radical Islam, some other politico-religious movement, ect. That is how I envision 21st century warfare: completely decentralized. Robert D. Kaplan mentioned in the first chapter of _The Coming Anarchy_ that these wars “will ripple across continents with no discernible pattern” or something to that effect. Logically the only way for this to happen is what I described above.
Younghusband
I could thank you for your kind words and links on the blog, and apologize for not being able focus my thoughts today on a worth-while reply,
I could mention something about India’s Prime Minister speaking to a joint session of Congress
or Bush’s new Supreme Court pick
or even al Qaeda in Iraq convertting to Barnettian strategy
but instead….
the most important news in the history of humanity…
TDAXP IS ON TECHNORATI’S FRONT PAGE
!!!111!!!
Pingback: tdaxp
I see dead people.
oops.
Not dead people. 5GWs. Yeah. That’s it.
/ end self-promotion
Rigourous.
I’m still not clear on what the key difference is between 4GW and 5GW. I thought 4GW’s main feature was that the enemy has no discernable organization, and that they fight with whatever means available. What you guys are saying about 5GW really sounds more like a W 4.1.
4GW requires the attacker to have a politically mobilized population and the attacker’s goal is to destroy the enemy’s will to resist.
However, a politically mobilized population makes 5GW more difficult and 5GW attackers have no need to attack an enemy’s will.
Pingback: PurpleSlog » Blog Archive » 5GW Reply and Intro to ThunderPig and other stuff
Pingback: 5GW Link Spotting: Baudrillard’s Bastard - “hackers, power grids, and (dis)information” « PurpleSlog