Quote:
My comment deals solely with the political aspects of 4th-5th Generation warfare and not its military aspects (e.g., "swarming").
My first problem is calling the "political, economic, social" effort "warfare". The use of the "military" (whether one calls it a network, system or something else) is likely to involve armed conflict (organized group violence) - and hence is "warfare". The "political, economic, social" elements (the DIE in DIME), on the other hand, are not as likely to involve violence (although some may occur), or to give rise to an armed conflict.
Obviously, those DIE elements can occur concurrently with a military armed conflict (warfare); but they also can occur absent a military armed conflict (a point that Bob Jones also makes in somewhat different terms). Those political efforts are not well named as a part of "warfare", even though they may be coincident to an armed conflict (war). They are indeed a "struggle" (in terms similar to CvC's "struggle" between military opponents); but they are covered more in Sun Tzu's soundbites than in CvC's On War - and, of course, much more fully by such as Mao and Giap.
Regardless of what that effort is called, it is intended to "convince the enemy’s political decision makers" to bend to the opponent's will. Thus, its aimpoint is not primarily the opponent's military (although that may be a target of agitprop and subversion), but the opponent's civilian (political) side. While there are some CvC basics involved, calling it "warfare" mixes the two efforts (political and military).
The 4th and 5th Generation proponents should generally be given credit for preaching that there is a political struggle. That struggle can be ongoing and coincident to the military struggle in many armed conflicts (but not in all armed conflicts, they should add). Further, in the right circumstances, the political struggle alone can be successful, where resort to an armed conflict would not be. In the latter case (the political struggle alone), no "warfare" is involved at all.
Regards
Mike
I find it quite logical that other fields then the military one matter in warfare, if i recall it correctly CvC said that breaking the will of the people was something of an end goal in every war ( and which should be accomplished through destroying the enemy army and taking his land, but i dont think he would object to a shortcut ).
