I definitely don't think the so called 4th generation of war has much to do with weapons technology, but as you stated the way the war is waged. Supposedly 3rd generation war was primarily waged against armies, under the assumption if you defeat the Army you defeat the nation's will indirectly. Yet WWII is usually demonstrated as the 3d generation example, especially the Germans strategy of rapid deep attacks (maneuver warfare). However, this is another example of a definition that can't hold its water. We not only defeated Germany's and Japan's military, we used conventional warfare to destroy their industrial base and indiscriminately target their population.

4th Generation Warfare, which emerged after WWII starting around Mao's time (though Mao actually started prior to WWII) is generally described as a more of a political war, where the actions are primarily directed to achieve political objectives, whether terrorist acts, or major offensives such as the Tet Offensive, or holding Fallujah and fighting to the death. With the exception of the Tet offensive the intent isn't to defeat the military, but rather defeat the political will of the target audience.

I guess you could also call this asymmetric warfare, but I don't think that fits, because we could do the same, we choose not to (an error in my opinion).

4th Generation Warfare isn't so much tactics, but rather a strategy change, and of course the strategy provides the frame work for your tactics. Technology enables a wider range of tactics, and so on.

Again I don't like the term generation in this context, but looking beyond that the 4th GW theorists make some good arguments. I think we're in the midst of great social/political upheaval, which is close to the clash of cultures, but I think more a redefining of the nation-state's role in the world. We (the human race globally) are rapidly developing new economic models that transcend the control of the state. Who butters your bread the state or your mulitnational Corporation? Individuals who wouldn't have a voice previously beyond their immediate social sphere, can now influence global communities. For example, Al Qaeda doesn't have to recruit directly, they provided a vision (we validated it with our response), an umbrella strategy, and Muslims worldwide can opt in if they choose. In other words they mobilize cadres/armies in every nation where there is a Muslim population vulnerable to this type of exploitation. This strains the nation state over time to the point it becomes incapable of maintaining control (in theory).

So far our response to this threat has been to go out and beat up a couple of Armies (Taliban and Iraq), which in my opinion simply made the situation worse, because we played into Bin Laden's hands, and provided a wealth of propaganda material. They appear to be getting stronger, while we are getting weaker in the sense of the moral and political will.

It isn't a generation of warfare, but we better wake up and realize that there are changes in the wind, and adjust to them accordingly.