I have been a supporter of 4th GW concepts up to a limit, but have grown more critical of the 4th GW mafia over time based on the identified petty ego problems. I also don't like categorizing wars by generation, to include the 1st through 3rd generation wars.

Whatever we call it in the end, I think our social, economic, information, and political environment has changed considerably since the end of WWII, which in itself changes the nature of war significantly. You'll see various comments throughout the site on so called 4th GW and little on 5GW.

I loved Wolfberger's comment that 4GW is a phrase searching for concept.

I think anytime you apply a label to war, you'll quickly find out that are being aspects of the conflict that don't fit into your definition or concept, so the label serves little purpose. For the long time SWC members, believe it or not, I'm actually a closet Clausewitz fan (hard for some to believe after my many rants against our officers who know nothing but Clausewitz), and his guidance was that the most important thing a political leader must do prior to commiting forces to war, is to understand the nature of the war he is going to fight (note this is very loosely paraphrased). 2d, 3d, and 4th GW constructs do not describe the nature of the war one is about to undertake in my opinion.

In short, I concur with many of the scattered ideas found in 4th and 5th GW articles and books, and think we would all be better off if we studied them, but they are far, far from complete theories.