I agree with many that "generational" concepts of war are hugely disturbing (even if I've written about it). I've been doing a literature review on the topic and I'm coming to some ideas that may or may not be valid.

1) The reasons for conflict remain the same. The reasons, the issues, the politics, the humanity of conflict is the same throughout history.

2) There are fundamental tactics that remain the same. Small unit to large army the ideas of movement, formation, are re-interpreted but fundamentally similar to previous eras.

3) Strategies appear to evolve but that is a false premise. Understanding and knowledge of the enemy and response techniques to the enemy actions evolve to follow consistent maturation models.

4) The fulcrum of many military eras is a fusion of technology and culture. New weapons cause a scramble to identify new defenses which result in new attack modes. That follow similar strategies of past eras just in newly interpreted roles.

I might suggest that industrial age harmonics rolling through our knowledge economic age have created a tension within military circles (e.g. Nagl v. Gentile). Generational and episodic explanations have a tendency to create waves of new/old thinking. Whereas, usually the point of view of each is increasingly in error as the window of time moves across both points of view. The only constant being change, the only reality being the independent view points of the participants.

Some meager ideas frittered away on Christmas eve.