In a recent post, Tom Barnett synthesizes Coming Anarchy RevG, ZenPundit, and myself on the subject of 5th Generation War. (It’s a timely subject, as Curtis has just launched a blog dedicated to 5GW!) Tom’s post is very kind, and he uses one of my …

States may also use 5GW in lieu of initiiating 2GW or 3GW. Well executed 5GW should be less costly to the state then intiating 2GW or 3GW. Also, successfull SecretWar should have less blowback potential.

Non-state actors will use 5GW to fight against 4GW movements and against states because of a positive economic/risk/success calculation: well executed 5GW by a small non-state actor increases the odds that they can fight a state or 4GW movement and live to reap the rewards.

I also thinking while the 5GW planning phases mignt be long (time-wise) and complex, the 5GW operational phase will be fairly short. The greater the time required by the operation, the more likely it is to be discovered and the more likely the operation is so complex is not going to be completed.

Offensive 5GW will be characterized by long-term planning and preperation coupled with quick short-term operations.

“Initiating 5GW,” by Curtis Weeks, Phatic Communion, 14 March 2006, http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/03/initiating_5gw.php (from ZenPundit).

Following the revival on Generational Warfare and the OODA Loop sparked by posts at Coming Ana…

Spectacularly unwelll yesterday. In retrospect, symptoms started as soon as I woke up, though it only became obvious something was amiss while I played pinochle with Grandfather of tdaxp and Lady of tdaxp.

I live with the shadow of a childhood condi…

arherring is asking some good questions. Dan’s broad characterization of the effectiveness of 5GW forces who are fighting prior-generation forces is a little too abstract or even inconsequential, since it does not describe exactly how a 5GW force may fight a 4GW force. I’m talking, nuts and bolts. Consider the effective 4GW forces that have emerged in modern times; then ponder how a shadowy—indeed, a formless—5GW force will fight a 4GW force in order to achieve the 20x advantage.

I.e., I know that previously I’ve been considering how a 5GW force might defeat a society or NGO or coalition of states—without giving much thought to how the force would combat other actual military forces. It’s much easier to see how a 5GW might destroy a state than it is to see how a hidden organization might defeat a fuzzy 4GW force. The question is interesting, because a 4GW force attempts to destroy the will to fight while a 5GW force, in theory, would sap the very effectivenes of the “sapping the will to fight” utilized by a 4GW force.

Somehow, the 5GW force would need to inspire a 4GW force to continue doing what it does—in fact, would surreptitiously egg that force on—but in order for the 5GW force to win, the very maneuvers of a 4GW force would need to lead to that force’s downfall. How do you get a 4GW force to continue to “sap the enemy’s will” when that sapping is not really occurring; how do you fool the 4GW force into not seeing the lack of sapping?

If the 4GW force cannot be so fooled, the 5GW force risks the possibility that the 4GW force, seeing its failures, might transform into a 5GW force as well—not something an efficient 5GW force will allow to happen.

Another thing that strikes me as possibly quite relevant for 5GW: I think that, quite unlike all previous forms of warfare, a 5GW force will utilize all the previous forms of warfare, in whatever combinations are appropriate to given situations. This does not mean that the 5GW force will necessarily bomb the hell out of people or engage in guerrilla warfare; instead, it means that the 5GW force will be manipulating 4GW, 3GW, 2GW, 1GW forces against each other. The 5GW force might even slip into direct 4GW activity in order to frame other parties, but very carefully, so as not to be discovered itself. This utilization of all other forms of warfare is qualitatively different than how the other types of warfare operate. (And, I suppose to draw the circle full, I should add that Dan’s concepts of 4GW politics, diplomacy, etc., and all the other generations of these, would also be utilized by the 5GWarriors.)

What I was mainly getting at was that 5GW will be what States will use to combat 4GW. I think that 4GW is evolving toward the ‘true formlessness’ described here and may use those same techniques but I still think it is 4GW.

So then, if a 5GW organization / movement is to exist and be used by a State to counter 4GW, then what sort of structure will offer it the ability to effectively combat a 4GW network if not a network of its own?

I really liked ‘Dreaming 5GW’ and the other posts like it, but what we need is a forum entitled ‘Building 5GW’ to bring all the major players together and start from the ground up.

Congrats on getting John Robb to comment here, but his shows why I am correctly of GGish. I’ve said before that GG seems like just a new form of 3GW—but his description here sounds like 1GW. GGs would try to stop a state by simple attrition—attacking the state where the state is strongest (wealth) and the guerrillas are necessarily weaker.

Aherring, if 5GW is “true” then it will be the next tool of war that states adopt. But viral, networked ideas are the hallmark of 4GW. So I’d return your criticism to you, while thanking you for it. :-)

An al-Qaeda that was a pure movement and continued to perpetrate violence without command and control would simply cause observers to conclude that al-Qaeda = Islam… AND VICE-VERSA.

This would indeed spawn a reaction, and very possibly a war or three along the way. The wars would likely be of the Total variety, however, and that’s lethal to an organization which depends for its existence on preserving asymetry. Though al-Qaeda itself would doubtless be delighted at this result.

For a little while.

John, so the GG’s are not trying to effect any sort of political change? They just keep attacking systempunkts simply for the purpose of disruption? Maybe sabotage those that are in front of you, so that you may get ahead?

If 3GW was created to defeat 2GW and 4GW created to defeat 3GW, then by definition wouldn’t 5GW be the next logical step for a National / State actor to move toward in order to funtion against transnational 4GW players?

I agree that 5GW will be a networked organization, but I think the main weapon it will wield will be the idea of connectivity. I imagine it to be sort of viral, with each person in the organization being a vector to spread the idea be they a soldier, a diplomat, an engineer, or a relief worker.

My post today combining Younghusband’s look at 5GW with Mark’s on irrational nuclear powerst collapsed when I reread YH’s post and realized that he addressed my concerns.

And my latest reaction paper for Scopes & Methods won’t be going up, becau…

On further thought, let me retune my comment, and add another.

Deception has always been part of warfare, and you are correct we will see this in 5GW too. From non-existent horsemen over the next hill to fake tanks meant to scare the Germans,

That said, you are correct that Observation plays a particularly large part in 5GW. Indeed, so large a part that the question of the identity of what is being observed comes up. If nativists really would use al Qaeda as a patsy, then not only are the nativists soundless and formless to the Government—even the “real” al Qaeda has a form and sound quite different from what the government thinks it does!

To use your example, in The Usual Suspects everyone is observing the actions of the Kayser Soze Organizatoin. The main 5GWarrior in the movie clearly misdirected his enemies, just as the nativists misdirect the fed in my example. Yet, if one says the “real Kayser Soze Organization” is what is fighting, regardless of the perceived identity, then couldn’t one say in my example that the “real al Qaeda” is still the one fighting, even if it’s quite different than the mind’s picture of al Qaeda?

So in conclusion

a) I think our views are much closer than I originally thought,
b) I need to apply identity more meaningfully to 5GW than I have,
c) this was an excellent post, and
d) All this work, and you never link to Dreaming 5GW? Egads! :-)

Chirol’s right. Beautiful graphics. Mad beautiful!

And indeed, props for the Usual Suspects reference. :-)

First, a mistake in your OODA loop that I make a lot. Orientation feeds backward into Observation. (See detailed view). For some reason this is terrible for me to remember—check out my post on the social cognition loop to see how I got it wrong and right in the same post. :-)

Second, I wouldn’t say that a 5GW can be against nobody, because war requires a thinking opponent. Every generation of war is a qualitative shift. One way of thinking that is that it allows an opponent to win at a something like 20x disadvantage against an earlier generation of war. So 20 5GWers could defeat 400 4GWers, who could defeat 8000 3GWers, who could defeat 160000 2GWers, etc.

In other words, a small 5GW cadre could defeat their criminal enemies the FBI, and the LAPD… . which is similar to what happens in Usual Suspects, even with my view of 5GW…

Again, great post.

Well done ! I think that you are definitely correct that the wider Jihadi-Salafi community is at the stage of emergent behavior whch makes the counterintelligence and counterterrorism task eceptionally difficult.

There are also modular networks in operation in the scenario you describe. To quote my friend Dr. Von:

*”How can a network make use of fundamental principles from a variety of fields to enhance the performance of the entire network? In everyday terms, to me this almost sounds like multitasking. One needs to have members of the network who have studied and are trained in multiple fields, or small numbers of individuals who know something about a lot of different fields…research shows this multitasking tends to reduce productivity if you take the individual route. I may be a bit off on this, but in network theory, there is a hierarchical structure to some real networks that was discovered in ~2002. There are naturally forming, self-emergent networks within networks. There is still a scale-free mathematical structure to the more complex networks, and they are now called modular networks. A large company does this by having different departments, which by themselves are networks of workers. But the hubs, department managers, perhaps, are the links between the departments (modules) to form an ever more complex structure. The Internet and biological cell are naturally occurring modular networks, and the more people look, the more this structure is found in real networks.

Modularity makes use of a variety of local information for the global success of the overall network. The fact that this occurs naturally through the evolution of many types of networks is intriguing. Perhaps this is what Wilson’s intuition was telling him. If I were a manager, I suppose I would encourage interaction between my department and others, to cross-feed each other with our knowledge and find out how to push the boundaries of our business.”*

http://vonscience.blogspot.com/2005/08/discussion-of-resilience-and.html

So the loose decentralization of post 9/11 Al qaida 2.0 may be compensated somewhat by intranetworking behavior, increasing the parameters of influence even as the ability to deliver a concentrated intensity diminishes.