While the generational structure may be a good teaching tool for demonstrating the changing nature of the tactics of war, it can be misleading in the sense that some may view the introduction of new tactics as a wholesale change. Sure, war evolves to take advantage of new technologies but it is timeless in its objectives. The goal remains the acheivement of some political goal. While I'm certainly not as well read in Clausewitz and Sun Tzu as I'd like to be, both of these guys spoke of this. Like WFO says, its nothing new.

Maybe my understanding is wrong (someone show me the light here, please), but war has always been about influencing the political will to fight. It was simply done in different manners by different folks. Some argued that the best way to break political will was to target military forces, others saw the populations as the appropriate target, while still others thought targeting the war making machine was the way to go. The goal remained the same-convince political leadership that continued fighting wasn't worth it.

As for changing tactics, I would agree that cyber warfare is an appropriate term since it encompasses the use of cyber to achieve military objectives. I, among others, view law in the same light. Lawfare has been defined as the use of law to acheive military objectives. This cite by WTO in another thread is an excellent example. Although it is being pursued by a third party, the desired result is the acheivement of a military objective for Hamas as it will chill potential Israeli responses. While the use of law to acheive military objectives may or may not be new (I would argue that it is not new as the Hague Conventions actually served to acheive military objectives), it doesn't change war into something new. Rather it provides an additional means for waging war. Its the same with cyber tactics.