Debate over The Generations of War.

[Rex Brynen]

With all the talk of 4th, 5th and 6th (etc.) generational stuff I wonder where the "democratisation of technology" is leading us, perhaps cheap UCAVs for domestic and international insurgents?

I foresee a time when all warfare is conducted by exchanging trendy jargon until one side surrenders:

"I leverage my asymmetrical assets, and swarm you!"

"I use decentralized, networked capabilities to neutralize your swarm, and counter with virtual strategic communications aimed directly at your transnational centers of (5GW) gravity!"

"Curse you! But your networked capabilities are no match for my viral cyber strategy and avatar-based resource mobilization! My every soldier is a sensor! My corporals are all strategic!"

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!"

etc.

[jmm99]

from Rex
"Your mother was a hamster...

and the word I was looking for: "hamsterfare".

Cheers

Mike

[reed11b]

Your post.

Day = Made.
thank you sir.
Reed

[Joske]

My comment deals solely with the political aspects of 4th-5th Generation warfare and not its military aspects (e.g., "swarming").

My first problem is calling the "political, economic, social" effort "warfare". The use of the "military" (whether one calls it a network, system or something else) is likely to involve armed conflict (organized group violence) - and hence is "warfare". The "political, economic, social" elements (the DIE in DIME), on the other hand, are not as likely to involve violence (although some may occur), or to give rise to an armed conflict.

Obviously, those DIE elements can occur concurrently with a military armed conflict (warfare); but they also can occur absent a military armed conflict (a point that Bob Jones also makes in somewhat different terms). Those political efforts are not well named as a part of "warfare", even though they may be coincident to an armed conflict (war). They are indeed a "struggle" (in terms similar to CvC's "struggle" between military opponents); but they are covered more in Sun Tzu's soundbites than in CvC's On War - and, of course, much more fully by such as Mao and Giap.

Regardless of what that effort is called, it is intended to "convince the enemy’s political decision makers" to bend to the opponent's will. Thus, its aimpoint is not primarily the opponent's military (although that may be a target of agitprop and subversion), but the opponent's civilian (political) side. While there are some CvC basics involved, calling it "warfare" mixes the two efforts (political and military).

The 4th and 5th Generation proponents should generally be given credit for preaching that there is a political struggle. That struggle can be ongoing and coincident to the military struggle in many armed conflicts (but not in all armed conflicts, they should add). Further, in the right circumstances, the political struggle alone can be successful, where resort to an armed conflict would not be. In the latter case (the political struggle alone), no "warfare" is involved at all.

Regards

Mike

I find it quite logical that other fields then the military one matter in warfare, if i recall it correctly CvC said that breaking the will of the people was something of an end goal in every war ( and which should be accomplished through destroying the enemy army and taking his land, but i dont think he would object to a shortcut ).

Also i think that the importance of operations in the "other fields" become more important when the chance of a relative fast military-only victory lowers. This could for example be aplied to insurgencies or low intensity conflicts, but it also played a major role in for example the strategic bombing campaigns in world war 2 or even during world war 1 with blockades and zeppelin bombing raids.
And although i surely agree with the fact that the political aspect of warfare should never be ignored, it has always been a part of warfare and Mao and Che are two names who pop up into my head when i think of this point.

[Tom Odom]

I foresee a time when all warfare is conducted by exchanging trendy jargon until one side surrenders:

"I leverage my asymmetrical assets, and swarm you!"

"I use decentralized, networked capabilities to neutralize your swarm, and counter with virtual strategic communications aimed directly at your transnational centers of (5GW) gravity!"

"Curse you! But your networked capabilities are no match for my viral cyber strategy and avatar-based resource mobilization! My every soldier is a sensor! My corporals are all strategic!"

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of elderberries!"

etc.

Ahhhh Rex

that time is already upon us

That would be Leavenworts

Home of Jedi Knights, Harry Potter, and Design

Take that Voldemart, Violator of Doctrinal Purity and other notional virgins!

[slapout9]

Link to 2004 article by Bill Lind.


http://antiwar.com/lind/index.php?articleid=1702