Fourth-Generation War and Other Myths

[dusty]

I am about to read Dr. Echevarria's paper on 4GW which is published by the Strategic Studies Institute. I have read the 4GW theory that was put forward in the 1989 paper in the Marine Corps Gazette, and agreed with the author's points.

Have any of you read this paper, and if so, what's your opinion on it? Are there any certain points that I could keep in mind while reading this?
Read it here

[John T. Fishel]

I have never been very impressed with 4GW theory and find myself in agreement with Echevarria's assessment. If one is interested in some innovative thinking on the subject a recent book, Networks, Terrorism, and Global Insurgency, edited by Robert Bunker and published by Routledge (originally as special issue of Low Intensity Conflict & Law Enforcement - Vol 11 No 2/3 Winter 2002). Of particular interest is the lead chpter/article of Part Three, "Challenging the Hegemon: Al Qaeda's Elevation of Asymmetric Insurgent Warfare Onto the Global Arena" by Kimbra L. Fishel.

[Steve Blair]

I find some of the 4GW points interesting (mostly those articulated in "The Sling and the Stone," though I have reservations about his reliance on Mao), though overall I don't consider it a credible "generation." IMO what we're seeing is a convergence of 3GW with older terrorist tactics and an acceleration of media attention due to technological advances. I would say it's more of an advanced 3GW, but not the sweeping thing that 4GW advocates claim.

Also, I think there's a fair amount of ego invested in 4GW.

[J Wolfsberger]

I've read and learned a lot from it. DuPuy, in A Genius for War, discusses the way changes in lethality of the soldiers weapons - gladius to pike to musket to rifle to machine gun -- brought about what I would think of as generational changes in the art of war. In that light, 4GW strikes me as a phrase searching for a concept. I also agree with Steve, there's too much ego involved for my comfort.

[Old Eagle]

Echevarria's paper is a little too academic for me, but I take his points. The important thing in my mind, regardless of whether there are any generations of war, is that the war we are fighting now and that to which we will be subjected will be like those outlined by Tom Hammes. Echevarria mentions this fact several times in his paper, but it kinda gets lost among the explanations of the real meaning of the Treaty of Westphalia, etc.

Other points --
Yes, Clausewitz good
Yes, trinity good
Yes, Sun Tzu good

[Steve Blair]

Hammes is good, but as I've mentioned before I think he spends too much time on Mao and doesn't look back far enough to find other (and possibly better) examples of what he's talking about.

One of my gripes with 4GW theorists is that they spend far too much time talking about how "new" their theory is and how it encompasses everything and actually seem to spend very little time working on the actual details and application. A great deal of it seems to be a pissing contest to figure out who thought of what first. Hammes doesn't do this, but there are others out there who do. I've always figured it was just the basics of 3GW taken to a different playing field and with a few different gaps and surfaces.