Debate over The Generations of War.

[selil]

Marine 49-53, Guard and Reserve 53-56, Army 56-76 (~14 of it Abn), DAC 76-95 -- that's all called masochism...

Once a Marine always a Marine. Everything else is just a job.

[Ski]

The bottom line is that the doctrine - whether it be from military sources, such as FM 3-24, FM 3-0, JP3-0, etc or non-military sources (Lind, Barnett, Sepp, Hoffman, etc) is changing exceptionally quickly because the military is not the center of gravity (hey, look at that, Clausewitz) in these conflicts yet the military is being used to try and solve these "wicked problems."

I suspect the frustration levels within the militaries is going to continue to rise over the next decade or so, mainly because it's being used as the primary instrument of foreign policy.

I don't think, at this stage, there is a right answer. To paraphrase Boyd from another thread, "Don't talk to me about doctrine, it becomes dogma the day after it's written."

[zenpundit]

My apologies for the delayed response on my part. I'll do my best to catch up now with the questions and rebuttals.

In approximate order:

CavGuy:

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

.

4GW contains a number of operative premises regarding the nature of warfare - (an aside- I like how you identified some of them as evironmental though, Lind focuses a lot on actors' intent but that's not the whole picture) - the premises carry with them a logic on the effects that uses of force are going to produce. While I have some reservations about 4GW myself, in the interest of testing I propose to apply that logic strictly to whatever case study/scenarios on which we can reach agreement as the initial starting point ( see my respnse to WM below)

Bill Moore

...although openly publishing suspected pro's and con's of two belligerent's strategies while they're fighting could very well shape the outcome if they browse this site. To keep it objective it would have to be done via e-mails to the referee.

Point taken. Good thinking.

Wilf Owen:

Very happy to participate, except I agree with a lot of the 4GW positions, and CAVGUY has got it right, with his reservations about the idea. My "beef" with 4GW is the overall concept, not the detail of its parts. I have the same beef with MW.

Thank you Wilf. Approach the challenge, if we all can agree on one, in the way you think is most useful in making your point. I'd prefer the anti-4GW side have as free a hand as they require in the interest of a fair test and an interesting discussion.

One of my "Rules" for modern operations is DO NOT KILL CIVILIANS. If you simply aim for that, then a lot/some of the 4GW constructs evaporate as a concern. Why doesn't 4GW just say that?

My guess would be that Lind also sees "punitive expeditions" and "Hama solutions" as a rare but necessary part of a strategy of "containment" for the encroaching disorder of a 4GW world. That however, remains a guess. Ask Lind if you get a chance.

Ski

I'm up for a wargaming scenario with a 4GW lens. Will be enjoyable, especially if Herr Oberst Walters and Zen are on my side

My thanks Ski !

WM

I'd be more than happy to play but I suspect that the predictive power of 4GW theory (if it has any, which I doubt for the same kinds of reasons given by CavGuy and Bill Moore) is not where Zenpundit proposes the contest. I submit that it may lie in assessing where and how the next outbreak of violence will occur, not in deciding how it will end up.
Do the 4GW advocates want to take on this challenge instead?"

Good idea! I'd be up for that as well if Ski and any other "takers" are agreeable. We might want to consider narrowing it to say, three regions selected by a neutral party rather than making the target zone as "planet earth". But I'm flexible.

BTW, I note that Zen proposed a one against many effort--the "traditionalists" nominate a prognosticator "champion" to be subjected to a riposte from a 4GW "Red Team"--certainly sounds like a traditional (dare I say attrition-based warfare) approach--use mass to ensure you trounce your opponent

You have misread my original suggestion. Actually I'd rather go solo against a team than the reverse. My interest is trying to play this not as myself but in as true a spirit to van Creveld and Lind as I can manage - minus the odd reverence for the Wilhelmine Reich. I think the two sides should be well represented as we want a first-rate exchange here. Otherwise, there's no point.