Debate over The Generations of War.

[Cavguy]

I'd like to add a few comments to those of Col. Walters.


There's a difference between using correct historical methodology - something I was trained to do - where you seek to explain causation of events and engaging in strategic sudies or some other social science. In history, you do not begin with a conclusion and use that as a prism with which to interpret events or attempt to justify it by gathering evidence that suits the model. Or rather you are not supposed to do that.

Strategic theories, like 4GW or IR theories in Poli Sci or economic models are useful only to the extent that they are explanatory and almost always that means that successful theories will fit a few scenarios very well, fit many adequately or partially and others not at all. Expressing the theory in quantitative terms instead of qualitative terms does not change that limitation, it just tells you with greater specifity how well your theory is matching or missing reality.

Is 4GW a useful theory? The best test of that would be how predictive it proves to be in "the real world".

The Small Wars Council could run an informal test pretty easily. At the next outbreak of serious conflict - the next Georgia or Somalia or whatever scenario we find agreeable we could have CavGuy, Wilf Owen, WM or whomever offer their analytical predictions of the outcome based upon whatever yardstick they think serves best and then a 4GW "Red Team" offering their set of predictions - say myself, Ski, Selil, Eric Walters. Then we can see where the chips fall and evaluate accordingly. Dave Dilegge can be our referee.

Any interest gentlemen ?

Zen, I don't see how it's a "challenge", because you can't use 4GW to predict anything, only describe and environment. I'm confused. How is 4GW or whatever construct I use "predictive"? It's a descriptor of a condition, not a theory.

That theory, at its root, exists to support the notion that "maneuver warfare" (3GW) is automatically superior to "attritional warfare" (2GW) in most every situation. Note I used quotes. And 4GW exists to make people think this is something "new" rather than old. In other words - the whole construct simply exists to reinforce a dogmatic notion that (as the creators define it) 2GW<3GW<4GW. Which means you have to accept that there even is a "attrition" school and a "maneuver" school - which is also a fraud. This is as dogmatic as the "2GW" construct the authors were trying to get the USMC out of. Having had some success in the USMC, their followers are now applying it beyond where it should be, IMO.

My beef with 4GW is that I don't think it's in all forms superior to 3GW and 2GW, and I don't necessarily think in all cases 3GW is "superior". I feel even bankrupt making these arguments because I don't agree with the premise of the construct in the first place.

I've seen Eric argue in every thread that it was a strawman to shake off complacency. Well that strawman is still around, and wreaking some bad history and knowledge among the less-thinking. What bothers me, at its core the GW construct exists only to advance the theories and ego of its authors, which they view as "necessary" even while acknowledging its bankruptcy. What happens when their bankrupt construct is carried too far? That is my concern.

Why the need to break down warfare in such a way against time?