Prior to attending RMC I was a strong proponent of xGW. Like so many of the military students I would meet over the next three years, I latched on to the latest and greatest. After a few months worth of study, I gained a wider perspective and became more critical of many aspects of xGW. Dan of tdaxp addresses some of my concerns, specifically causality. His proposal to change “generation” to “grade” is a good idea. Dan says:
Grade also has the benefit of not having the strict timeline implications of “generation” while not doing away entirely with the parts of the timeline of XGW that make sense.
This would be an advantage to reconciling xGW theory with mainstream military thought. Still though, I much prefer the categories of conflict that John Boyd proposed in his Patterns of Conflict (pdf, see slide 113).
These categories provided the basis for Lind’s later work on 4GW. The advantage to Boyd’s categories is the ahistorical aspect — there is no chain of causality. As mentioned by Dan above, this is one of the biggest criticisms of xGW. I maintain that xGW should abandon the timeline altogether.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « The End of Nepal’s Royal House
- » I hope to see Japanese military planes over China
COMMENTS / 7 COMMENTS
Dreaming 5GW added these pithy words on May 30 08 at 3:43 amTriangulating Clausewitz and Boyd…
Recent discussions re: “GMW vs xGW” [1] [2] [3] suggest that William Lind’s Generations of Modern Warfare model is insufficient and that the newer model xGW proves more useful for understanding warfare in our present era—as well as…...
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » What use is xGW? added these pithy words on Jun 05 08 at 11:11 am[...] has an interesting rejoinder to my suggestion for reforming xGW by doing away with the chronologic aspect. Curtis says something very striking in his post: If xGW [...]
Capturing My Thoughts: XGW, Coming Anarchy, Boyd, and Categories of Conflict « PurpleSlog added these pithy words on Jun 16 08 at 7:34 pm[...] My Thoughts: XGW, Coming Anarchy, Boyd, and Categories of Conflict CA states: These categories provided the basis for Lind’s later work on 4GW. The advantage to Boyd’s [...]
Dan tdaxp added these pithy words on 29 May 08 at 2:35 amExcellent post.
Just one clarification: I think I, like you, was a fan of GMW (the Generations of Modern War). Further thought and discussion have made GMW unacceptable as an analytical tool. XGW has branched off from GMW.
I think it is best to say that XGW is a response to GMW, that builds off GMW, and contradicts GMW.
Benjamin Walthrop added these pithy words on 29 May 08 at 9:07 pmYour thoughts on the naval aspects of the categories of conflict that you have brought to our attention would be appreciated.
The US Navy in particular has had a component of manuever warfare and attrition warfare (especially at the founding of the nation through WWII). In WWII, I believe the Navy shifted to manuever conflict, and if the new maritime strategy is a guide the US Navy may have recently codified a shift to Moral Conflict.
Soob added these pithy words on 01 Jun 08 at 10:21 pm“I maintain that xGW should abandon the timeline altogether.”
Amen. The idea that strategy prior to 1GW (Napoleonic) should simply be relegated to “pre-modern” warfare is ridiculous and constrains the theoretical framework. The chronological aspect has always been the number one element of GMW that I’ve found inconsistent with reality.
purpleslog added these pithy words on 16 Jun 08 at 7:23 pmBoyd is a good starting point, but it is not sufficient.
Where does genocide warfare (aka primal warfare) fit in? It doesn’t in Boyd (or in Lind’s GMW). It has a place in XGW.
Boyd’s Moral warfare is a subset of Lind’s GMS’s 4GW. There is not hint of the tools available in XGW’s 4GW in Boyd or Lind. Check out Unrestricted Warfare for an idea of the possible scope (perhaps though Unrestricted Warfare should be consider something separate from 4GW).
Also, in Boyd there is no place for 5GW aka Secret War aka Invisible Warfare.
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
