Comments on: What use is xGW?

By: Younghusband

Younghusband — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 04:45:42 +0000

This is what I am talking about! Symmetrical and asymmetrical (+1 and -1) matrices for the interactions between various gradients.

By: Curtis Gale Weeks

Curtis Gale Weeks — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:05:31 +0000

Thanks for the gloss and “the strategist’s advice”! In fact, “breaking strategy” does describe aspects of the xGW that we at Dreaming 5GW have discussed; at least, I’ve approached it that way before:

In X vs X, I gave a quick skim of why the X’s we’ve discussed were able to defeat the X-1, and concluded:

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.

In any case, further study to determine exactly how this occurs, or even what are the methods that one X will use to break up the other X’s strategy, etc., could lead us in new directions beyond those I’ve used for a framework of understanding. The point is that xGW is useless unless we can make it useful. Naturally.

By: Younghusband

Younghusband — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:16:38 +0000

I agree with Dan’s comment about scientific methods. xGW is a scientific endeavour, and it is the arguing that allows us to clarify the parameters and come to a deeper understanding about war. Furthermore, without the arguing, we all couldn’t make pithy cross-posts on our blogs! ;)

By: Dan tdaxp

Dan tdaxp — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 23:43:19 +0000

Political science is a model (excuse the pun) to follow, where centuries of heuristics has been replaced by quantitative investigation that advances human progress tremendously in just a few decades.

Still, Ralph’s comment is valuable because the sort of cryptic mnemonic devices which are so useful for practitioners (such as Machiavelli’s The Prince) are different from scientific and reliable methods of understanding (such as Hibbing and Theiss-Morse’s Stealth Democratic). They are different works for different audiences.

By: Ralph Hitchens

Ralph Hitchens — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:33:18 +0000

I have a feeling that too much arguing over topology is bad for business. Look what’s happened to political science—model-building at the expense of narrative.

By: Dan tdaxp

Dan tdaxp — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:47:24 +0000

xGW has not received a lukewarm reception in academic military theory circles. xGW has not been presented to academic military theory circles.

As for GMW, “rejected” is probably the better term.

xGW seeks to examine the dispersel of kinetic violence through society. It does this via 6 gradients, from 0GW (War in the Zeroth Gradient) where violence is almost entirely direct and not dispersed, to 5GW (War in the Fifth Gradient) where violence is almost entirely direct and dispersed throughout society.

The purpose of war is to use violence in order to achieve political ends.