4GW & Other Myths

**Jedburgh** · 12-22-2005

...there is no reason to reinvent the wheel with regard to insurgencies—super or otherwise—and their various kin. A great deal of very good work has already been done, especially lately, on that topic, to include the effects that globalization and information technologies have had, are having, and are likely to have, on such movements. We do not need another label, as well as an incoherent supporting logic, to obscure what many have already made clear. The fact that 4GW theorists are not aware of this work, or at least do not acknowledge it, should give us pause indeed. They have not kept up with the scholarship on unconventional wars, nor with changes in the historical interpretations of conventional wars. Their logic is too narrowly focused and irredeemably flawed. In any case, the wheel they have been reinventing will never turn.

**Uncle Scary** · 12-23-2005

Hello Jedburgh,
I wasn't that familiar with 4GW until I scanned the link that you provided.
Here's an excerpt from the abstract.

"In brief, the theory holds that warfare has evolved through four
generations: 1) the use of massed manpower, 2) ﬁrepower, 3) maneuver,
and now 4) an evolved form of insurgency that employs all available
networks—political, economic, social, military—to convince an
opponent’s decisionmakers unachievable or too costly."

Does the notion of 4GW look as fatally flawed as the author believes? I haven't read the whole link, so I can't speak intelligently about the theory or the author's opinions. But from what I gathered in the abstract, he believes that supporters of the 4GW theory believe that war has gone through 4 evolutions through history, and that modern day insurgents are now employing a "4th Gen" of war. The author believes that this theory is flawed, but I didn't get to the reasons why he believed this. Any opinions?

**Jedburgh** · 12-23-2005

Originally Posted by Uncle Scary

...from what I gathered in the abstract, he believes that supporters of the 4GW theory believe that war has gone through 4 evolutions through history, and that modern day insurgents are now employing a "4th Gen" of war. The author believes that this theory is flawed, but I didn't get to the reasons why he believed this. Any opinions?

Simply put, this method of warfare has been around as long as war itself. However, in modern military doctrine it has been "relabled" over and over again (i.e. guerrilla war, partisan war, small wars, insurgency, low-intensity conflict, etc). Now calling it 4GW and engaging in pseudo-intellectual discussions over its relevance in the current operational environment doesn't change the fact that the basic principles of this type of warfare have held true for centuries.

**GorTex6** · 12-23-2005

Originally Posted by Jedburgh

Simply put, this method of warfare has been around as long as war itself.

You are absolutely correct! However, it is now at the forefront and compounded with information technology(faster organizational OODA loops and vast exposure toward the global mass) and state failures from globalization(a borderless planet, economic vulnerabilities).

However, in modern military doctrine it has been "relabled" over and over again (i.e. guerrilla war, partisan war, small wars, insurgency, low-intensity conflict, etc).

It is not a relable but an alternative perspective. There is more than one way to skin a cat......

Now calling it 4GW and engaging in pseudo-intellectual discussions over its relevance in the current operational environment doesn't change the fact that the basic principles of this type of warfare have held true for centuries.

This is why the US military is still looking for their bag-of-what-da-####. Do they give frontal lobotomies at staff colleges/war colleges/officer re-education camp? Dumbasses think this war is "assymetrical", as though it is breaking all the rules.

Idiots

DDilegge · 12-23-2005

Originally Posted by GorTex6

This is why the US military is still looking for their bag-of-what-da-####. Do they give frontal labotomies at staff colleges/war colleges/military re-education camp? Dumbasses think this war is "assymetrical", as though it is breaking all the rules.

I sincerely believe that many within the DoD and "think-tank" communities are attempting to reinvent the wheel in terms as discussed here.

What I object to is a blanket condemnation of "all" institutions - especially our school houses. I know that our PME institutions are adapting their curriculum. One example is contained here - Concept Paper For CSC Master Thesis Project. Beyond the thesis, the USMC Command and Staff College has completely revamped its curriculum in an attempt to better educate our future Small Wars Leaders. Like COIN, education and training takes time for actions to produce results.

**GorTex6** · 12-24-2005

Originally Posted by DDilegge

I know that our PME institutions are adapting their curriculum.

....and it took how long?

- proof that the enemy has a steeper organizational learning curve(faster OODA loop). Our massive heirarchic "up the chain" command structure is vulnerable and inefficient when compaired to the enemies decentralized structure and open sourced methods. This is covered by 4GW theorists BTW.....

Dumbasses think this war is "assymetrical", as though it is breaking all the rules.

Who's got the bankrupt theory?

**GorTex6** · 12-23-2005

Originally Posted by Uncle Scary

I wasn't that familiar with 4GW

Here and here

the original paper from Oct 1989

Col. Hammes with greater detail, Sept 1994

**GatorLHA2** · 03-22-2006

4th Gen Warfare is not new. A serious study of the American Revolution will show that the "Founding Fathers" used 4GW. They used conventional military forces; irregular military forces; insurgency; information warfare; effective local, state and national political networks; social factors; economic boycots; attacks against economic targets; and international diplomacy to win the war.

Originally Posted by Uncle Scary

Hello Jedburgh,
I wasn't that familiar with 4GW until I scanned the link that you provided.
Here's an excerpt from the abstract.

"In brief, the theory holds that warfare has evolved through four
generations: 1) the use of massed manpower, 2) ﬁrepower, 3) maneuver,
and now 4) an evolved form of insurgency that employs all available
networks—political, economic, social, military—to convince an
opponent’s decisionmakers unachievable or too costly."

Does the notion of 4GW look as fatally flawed as the author believes? I haven't read the whole link, so I can't speak intelligently about the theory or the author's opinions. But from what I gathered in the abstract, he believes that supporters of the 4GW theory believe that war has gone through 4 evolutions through history, and that modern day insurgents are now employing a "4th Gen" of war. The author believes that this theory is flawed, but I didn't get to the reasons why he believed this. Any opinions?

**GorTex6** · 03-22-2006

Originally Posted by GatorLHA2

4th Gen Warfare is not new.

Insurgency is not new. The theory of warfare as it is has evolved in the past couple of centuries is new- this is 4GW.

**GatorLHA2** · 03-22-2006

Originally Posted by GorTex6

Insurgency is not new. The theory of warfare as it is has evolved in the past couple of centuries is new- this is 4GW.

My point exactly, 4GW is NOT a new form of warfare. Only the theory is NEW? It's like old wine in new bottles, the same old thing with new lables.

**GorTex6** · 03-23-2006

Originally Posted by GatorLHA2

My point exactly, 4GW is NOT a new form of warfare. Only the theory is NEW? It's like old wine in new bottles, the same old thing with new lables.

No. It's like saying "home-made wine is now more popular than cheap wine-in-a-box"...I guess

Clear as mud?

**SWJED** · 01-22-2006

SWC's Zenpundit...

William Lind has posted a scathing attack on the work of Thomas P.M. Barnett at Defense & The National Interest as part of a series of responses to critics and commenters on 4GW theory...

**Strickland** · 01-22-2006

In my opinion, Thomas Barnett's books, Blueprint for Action and The Pentagon's New Map, are the two best books I have read, along with Kepel's War for Muslim Minds , in a VERY long time. Yes, I have read Huntington, Freidman, and Fukuyama, and believe Barnett provides a much more compelling argument as to the future. Just my humble opinion.

**Stratiotes** · 01-23-2006

Originally Posted by Major Strickland

In my opinion, Thomas Barnett's books, Blueprint for Action and The Pentagon's New Map, are the two best books I have read, along with Kepel's War for Muslim Minds , in a VERY long time. Yes, I have read Huntington, Freidman, and Fukuyama, and believe Barnett provides a much more compelling argument as to the future. Just my humble opinion.

I just went over to the library website and found the Blueprint for Action presentation on DVD so I requested it. Interesting what one can find thru the library now. I started to read one of Barnett's books before and got sidetracked for some reason - it didn't catch my attention so I forgot about it. I'm going to check it out based on such high praise. Thanks Major.