Monday, October 16, 2006
5GW EMERGENT -BUT WHAT IS IT ?
Sound and fury -and some solid thought - on the next generation of warfare:
"Attempting to visualize a Fifth Generation from where we are now is like trying to see the outlines of the Middle Ages from the vantage point of the late Roman Empire."
- William Lind
"....fourth-generation wrfare is more than seventy years old and is reaching maturity. While we are only beginning to understand it clearly, history tells us the fifth generation has already begun to evolve"
- Colonel Thomas X. Hammes
"Things would be bad enough with just fourth generation opponents but as the research on global guerrillas has borne out, a new more dangerous generation is forming: potentially a 5th generation of warfare. Much of this new generation was derived and accelerated in cauldron of Iraq, just as the basis for 3rd generation of warfare was proved out in the Spanish Civil War"
- John Robb
" BFA suggested the institutional changes and strategic alliance choices necessary to move us beyond 4GW engagement (the Long War, as we call it now) and into what I would call 5GW shaping of the future battlespace (by locking down Asia and gaining its strategic aid in shrinking the Gap in all those places where our enemies are--to date--not yet strong, such as the entire Gap outside of the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan/Pakistan). "
- Thomas P.M. Barnett
Tom and John both had sizable posts today on 5GW, approaching phenomena of war and strategy, as they so often do, from related but opposing perspectives. Their common thread is contemplating 5GW as an event of a system with systemic effects. After that, they tend to diverge.
"My own personal 5GW dream" - Thomas P.M. Barnett
Dr. Barnett is doing a lot of online horizontal thinking these days which people accustomed to his more analytical news pieces find jarring or confusing; personally, with my interest in cognition, I like to see ideas gestate. Normally, we have to wait until a writer dies and the heirs let scholars (hopefully) edit and publish the thinker's drafts, notes and marginalia to gain insight into this process. Blogging it lets us all see the idea process in real time.
Shaping the global battlespace is the emphasis here which means the statesman, the salesman and the spy will have more longitudinal effect than the soldier. A good historical example of shaping the battlespace would be the "Present at the Creation" wise men after WWII whose work - Bretton Woods, IMF, World Bank, GATT ( todat the WTO), The Coal-Steel Community (today the EU), NATO, The Marshall Plan, the UN, Containment - won the Cold War and helped midwife globalization.
Today of course, it won't just be governments or "wise men" but entities like Google or Microsoft and -ultimately - emergent social networks using open source platforms, who will do a significant part of the shaping. They will also ride the major flows of globalization, taking advantage of the momentum of the environment in which they operate. This is the ultimate constructive goal of grand strategy - steering a civilizaton.
"THE CHANGING FACE OF WAR: Into the 5th Generation (5GW) " by John Robb at Global Guerillas
Robb's piece is tighter, polished and summative of his ideas. Probably the best look-see we will get on Global Guerillas until John's new book hits the stores.
"Granularity" is a word Robb has invoked on occasion and it is a good descriptor of the major trend line in world affairs caused by Globalization, the decline of the state and the 4GW that Robb examines daily. Disintegration, devolution, reductionism to smaller actors without a corresponding proportionate loss of power. Robb has an excellent logical case that the core of Global Guerillas -open source warfare, system disruption and virtual states - comprise a generational improvement on 4GW. Certainly, an order of magnitude improvement in terms of decentralization, area of operation and strategic effect.
Either-or on these strategic visions ? No. Both at once - though the momentum at various times may tip toward creation or destruction before swinging back again. Globalization, which has eroded artificial barriers that once slowed transaction rates for capital, information, technology and people, has vastly accelerated the net rate of exchange in the global system. Dynamic systems are exactly that - dynamic - which involves continuous change even when they appear to have enduring continuity. The argument here - seen most clearly when Barnett and Robb discuss "Big Bang" system perturbations - is over how much instability is in the global system and the desirability of provoking more.
Additionally, outside of Barnett and Robb, 5GW may very well involve what Dan of tdaxp termed " SecretWar" -an idea very much in keeping with the spirit of Sun Tzu. Steering emergent scenarios before an opposition realizes they are an opposition is far cheaper a policy than fighting after the fact. A policy of preemptive manipulation to which 4GW creates every incentive for using and which omnipresent communication networks enable.
SYSTEM PERTURBATION ADDENDUM:
For an understanding of System Perturbations, I modestly suggest the series I did in the aftermath of Tom's first book, The Pentagon's New Map:
HOW THE WINGS OF A BUTTERFLY CAN TURN PROUD TOWERS INTO A HOUSE OF CARDS: SYSTEM PERTURBATIONS AND PNM THEORY
GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS?THINKING ABOUT STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES FOR A SYSTEMICALLY CONNECTED WORLD: SYSTEM PERTURBATIONS AND PNM THEORY PART II
Dr. Barnett's Commentary on above.
MORE PNM THEORY: REVIEWING THE DELETED SCENE ON SYSTEM PERTURBATION - PART I. , PART II. , PART III., PART IV., PART V., PART VI., PART VII., PART VIII.
Dr. Barnett's aggregator post with commentaries
ADDENDUM II.
Aherring at Dreaming 5GW -" Rule-Sets, System Perturbations and 5GW" ¶ 8:19 PM
Sound and fury -and some solid thought - on the next generation of warfare:
"Attempting to visualize a Fifth Generation from where we are now is like trying to see the outlines of the Middle Ages from the vantage point of the late Roman Empire."
- William Lind
"....fourth-generation wrfare is more than seventy years old and is reaching maturity. While we are only beginning to understand it clearly, history tells us the fifth generation has already begun to evolve"
- Colonel Thomas X. Hammes
"Things would be bad enough with just fourth generation opponents but as the research on global guerrillas has borne out, a new more dangerous generation is forming: potentially a 5th generation of warfare. Much of this new generation was derived and accelerated in cauldron of Iraq, just as the basis for 3rd generation of warfare was proved out in the Spanish Civil War"
- John Robb
" BFA suggested the institutional changes and strategic alliance choices necessary to move us beyond 4GW engagement (the Long War, as we call it now) and into what I would call 5GW shaping of the future battlespace (by locking down Asia and gaining its strategic aid in shrinking the Gap in all those places where our enemies are--to date--not yet strong, such as the entire Gap outside of the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan/Pakistan). "
- Thomas P.M. Barnett
Tom and John both had sizable posts today on 5GW, approaching phenomena of war and strategy, as they so often do, from related but opposing perspectives. Their common thread is contemplating 5GW as an event of a system with systemic effects. After that, they tend to diverge.
"My own personal 5GW dream" - Thomas P.M. Barnett
Dr. Barnett is doing a lot of online horizontal thinking these days which people accustomed to his more analytical news pieces find jarring or confusing; personally, with my interest in cognition, I like to see ideas gestate. Normally, we have to wait until a writer dies and the heirs let scholars (hopefully) edit and publish the thinker's drafts, notes and marginalia to gain insight into this process. Blogging it lets us all see the idea process in real time.
Shaping the global battlespace is the emphasis here which means the statesman, the salesman and the spy will have more longitudinal effect than the soldier. A good historical example of shaping the battlespace would be the "Present at the Creation" wise men after WWII whose work - Bretton Woods, IMF, World Bank, GATT ( todat the WTO), The Coal-Steel Community (today the EU), NATO, The Marshall Plan, the UN, Containment - won the Cold War and helped midwife globalization.
Today of course, it won't just be governments or "wise men" but entities like Google or Microsoft and -ultimately - emergent social networks using open source platforms, who will do a significant part of the shaping. They will also ride the major flows of globalization, taking advantage of the momentum of the environment in which they operate. This is the ultimate constructive goal of grand strategy - steering a civilizaton.
"THE CHANGING FACE OF WAR: Into the 5th Generation (5GW) " by John Robb at Global Guerillas
Robb's piece is tighter, polished and summative of his ideas. Probably the best look-see we will get on Global Guerillas until John's new book hits the stores.
"Granularity" is a word Robb has invoked on occasion and it is a good descriptor of the major trend line in world affairs caused by Globalization, the decline of the state and the 4GW that Robb examines daily. Disintegration, devolution, reductionism to smaller actors without a corresponding proportionate loss of power. Robb has an excellent logical case that the core of Global Guerillas -open source warfare, system disruption and virtual states - comprise a generational improvement on 4GW. Certainly, an order of magnitude improvement in terms of decentralization, area of operation and strategic effect.
Either-or on these strategic visions ? No. Both at once - though the momentum at various times may tip toward creation or destruction before swinging back again. Globalization, which has eroded artificial barriers that once slowed transaction rates for capital, information, technology and people, has vastly accelerated the net rate of exchange in the global system. Dynamic systems are exactly that - dynamic - which involves continuous change even when they appear to have enduring continuity. The argument here - seen most clearly when Barnett and Robb discuss "Big Bang" system perturbations - is over how much instability is in the global system and the desirability of provoking more.
Additionally, outside of Barnett and Robb, 5GW may very well involve what Dan of tdaxp termed " SecretWar" -an idea very much in keeping with the spirit of Sun Tzu. Steering emergent scenarios before an opposition realizes they are an opposition is far cheaper a policy than fighting after the fact. A policy of preemptive manipulation to which 4GW creates every incentive for using and which omnipresent communication networks enable.
SYSTEM PERTURBATION ADDENDUM:
For an understanding of System Perturbations, I modestly suggest the series I did in the aftermath of Tom's first book, The Pentagon's New Map:
HOW THE WINGS OF A BUTTERFLY CAN TURN PROUD TOWERS INTO A HOUSE OF CARDS: SYSTEM PERTURBATIONS AND PNM THEORY
GREATER THAN THE SUM OF THE PARTS?THINKING ABOUT STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES FOR A SYSTEMICALLY CONNECTED WORLD: SYSTEM PERTURBATIONS AND PNM THEORY PART II
Dr. Barnett's Commentary on above.
MORE PNM THEORY: REVIEWING THE DELETED SCENE ON SYSTEM PERTURBATION - PART I. , PART II. , PART III., PART IV., PART V., PART VI., PART VII., PART VIII.
Dr. Barnett's aggregator post with commentaries
ADDENDUM II.
Aherring at Dreaming 5GW -" Rule-Sets, System Perturbations and 5GW" ¶ 8:19 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Some of the best thinking on 5GW has not been integrated into this snapshot. The first thing I notice here is the repeated mention of major players. What about the anonymous super-empowered individuals? Anything on the scale of existing 4GW forces would not have the required secrecy/stealth. What about the granularity of the system perturbations? A fine granular swarming attack on systempunkts by anonymous super-empowered individuals would seem to me to be closer to 5GW than recasting obvious 4GW attacks simply due to their effectiveness. Since 4GW already includes non-state players, would not 5GW mandate less centralization and fewer opportunities for predicting attackers and their attacks? For example, the 1960s gave the United States a generation of pacifists that mounted a startling resistance to the Vietnam War and the United States has responded in closing off those venues, those institutions are now pre-empted and co-opted, such a phenomena is now thwarted. However, a new generation is upon us, the echo-boomers are upon us. Dr. Marc Sageman (http://www.jhuapl.edu/POW/rethinking06/video.cfm) (ftp://ftp.jhuapl.edu/nsadrethink/081506/SagemanNotes.pdf) profiled terrorists and his findings closely parallel the social circumstances conditioning echo-boomers (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/01/60minutes/main646890.shtml). To expand upon this, we are looking at a huge population of intelligent technically savvy individuals that will contain a large number of underemployed, disenfranchised and alienated persons. They all come with high expectations; does anyone really think the United States will have the capacity to fulfill them all? They understand and have an aversion to being overtly manipulated by advertising, which means they well understand propaganda. They are the generation that is growing up in a world of viral marketing. Is not this a description of potential 5GW warriors? Perhaps 4GW is not adequately theorized because much of what is being proposed for 5GW easily falls under the 4GW rubric. I feel 5GW forces are being defined in a manner that would make them easily predictable by pundits and that is definitely not 5GW. The current actions by the United States Government indicate how much they fear the domestic population. While averting another 1960s protest generation they are applying a Darwinian ratchet and just as we see the rapid development of 4GW forces evolving within the OODA loop of the Iraqi and Afghani occupation forces it is too easy to predict the same for a dissatisfied domestic population. And this says nothing of foreign-born echo boomers. The handful of diasporic intelligentsia giving us the current crop of 4GW terrorists is a small population compared to those being prepared today. I do not see anyone anticipating this. Let us be real, more education, higher expectations and fewer opportunities will have a decided effect. As much as I feel Thomas P.M. Barnett (http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/archives2/003849.html) misses much of this I also feel he nails the steps to be taken to neutralize it. Unfortunately, I also agree with him in the observation that the chances are exceedingly slim that these steps will be taken.
# posted by 
: Tuesday, 17 October, 2006
: Tuesday, 17 October, 2006
Hi RevG
Excellent feedback, much appreciated. Here's my response:
"Some of the best thinking on 5GW has not been integrated into this snapshot. The first thing I notice here is the repeated mention of major players."
True. This post is only a snapshot and not a comprehensive examination of 5GW, which at this point, merits at least a journal article treatment. I had a couple of goals here:
a) Address the 5GW posts by two major strategic thinkers
b)Make available the large amount of posts I've done on System Perturbations, as that topic is being raised; I do not care to rewrite all that at the present time.
Purpleslog, Curtis, Dan, Shloky and others have all had worthy contributions on 5GW. I'd say Dan's are far more useful than my own. A post dealing with "non-major" players is probably in order. It will take time and a little research to pull together though. Good suggestion.
"What about the anonymous super-empowered individuals"
Covered that recently, will revisit again soon.
"What about the granularity of the system perturbations? A fine granular swarming attack on systempunkts by anonymous super-empowered individuals would seem to me to be closer to 5GW than recasting obvious 4GW attacks simply due to their effectiveness."
Great question. Technically, swarming is a transition point from individual to collective/smartmob action but I see what you mean. Going to have to ponder this one.
" Since 4GW already includes non-state players, would not 5GW mandate less centralization and fewer opportunities for predicting attackers and their attacks? "
Yes, most likely though peer-review network research is indicating that " noisy" environments will generate their own rule-sets and patterns.
"Is not this a description of potential 5GW warriors? Perhaps 4GW is not adequately theorized because much of what is being proposed for 5GW easily falls under the 4GW rubric."
True. We are very, very, late in the day on analyzing 4GW and on time, in my view, with 5GW. There's going to be taxonomical confusion for a while.
"While averting another 1960s protest generation they are applying a Darwinian ratchet and just as we see the rapid development of 4GW forces evolving within the OODA loop of the Iraqi and Afghani occupation forces it is too easy to predict the same for a dissatisfied domestic population. And this says nothing of foreign-born echo boomers. The handful of diasporic intelligentsia giving us the current crop of 4GW terrorists is a small population compared to those being prepared today. I do not see anyone anticipating this. Let us be real, more education, higher expectations and fewer opportunities will have a decided effect."
Yes, a gap between the two generates alienation (Hoftstadter's status anxiety & paranoid style) and the radicalization of the middle-class - though to the Right is at least as likely an outcome as the Left.
Thus the importance of economic dynamism in the sense of creating new fields of endeavor, not just making old ones more efficient.
Again, superb feedback.
Excellent feedback, much appreciated. Here's my response:
"Some of the best thinking on 5GW has not been integrated into this snapshot. The first thing I notice here is the repeated mention of major players."
True. This post is only a snapshot and not a comprehensive examination of 5GW, which at this point, merits at least a journal article treatment. I had a couple of goals here:
a) Address the 5GW posts by two major strategic thinkers
b)Make available the large amount of posts I've done on System Perturbations, as that topic is being raised; I do not care to rewrite all that at the present time.
Purpleslog, Curtis, Dan, Shloky and others have all had worthy contributions on 5GW. I'd say Dan's are far more useful than my own. A post dealing with "non-major" players is probably in order. It will take time and a little research to pull together though. Good suggestion.
"What about the anonymous super-empowered individuals"
Covered that recently, will revisit again soon.
"What about the granularity of the system perturbations? A fine granular swarming attack on systempunkts by anonymous super-empowered individuals would seem to me to be closer to 5GW than recasting obvious 4GW attacks simply due to their effectiveness."
Great question. Technically, swarming is a transition point from individual to collective/smartmob action but I see what you mean. Going to have to ponder this one.
" Since 4GW already includes non-state players, would not 5GW mandate less centralization and fewer opportunities for predicting attackers and their attacks? "
Yes, most likely though peer-review network research is indicating that " noisy" environments will generate their own rule-sets and patterns.
"Is not this a description of potential 5GW warriors? Perhaps 4GW is not adequately theorized because much of what is being proposed for 5GW easily falls under the 4GW rubric."
True. We are very, very, late in the day on analyzing 4GW and on time, in my view, with 5GW. There's going to be taxonomical confusion for a while.
"While averting another 1960s protest generation they are applying a Darwinian ratchet and just as we see the rapid development of 4GW forces evolving within the OODA loop of the Iraqi and Afghani occupation forces it is too easy to predict the same for a dissatisfied domestic population. And this says nothing of foreign-born echo boomers. The handful of diasporic intelligentsia giving us the current crop of 4GW terrorists is a small population compared to those being prepared today. I do not see anyone anticipating this. Let us be real, more education, higher expectations and fewer opportunities will have a decided effect."
Yes, a gap between the two generates alienation (Hoftstadter's status anxiety & paranoid style) and the radicalization of the middle-class - though to the Right is at least as likely an outcome as the Left.
Thus the importance of economic dynamism in the sense of creating new fields of endeavor, not just making old ones more efficient.
Again, superb feedback.
I can't seem to comment annonymously at the other sites, so much for the encouragement of future anonymous super-empowered individuals.
On the other hand, let me suggest that 5GW and the anonymous super-empowered individuals is not a new phenomena. It's not easy, and often not painless, but arguably, the Bhudda, Jesus, Mohammed (before his rise to secular power) and others were the anonymous super-empowered individuals of their day.
And, I think we are likely to see the rise of a new religion, but in this day and age, any violence or social/cultural disruptions will happen quickly. Comparatively quickly, anyway - not generations and centuries, but in a generation and decades - it will be a religion on meth. Hell, it could be an anonymous meth addict, or some other denizen of the underclass, that starts it. Certainly there are precedents.
I think it will happen, and for all the talk and discussion, we'll know it when it's over. In fact, the meme and the prophet may already be in the past, and it's just taking a while for society to catch up. I don't think this is the case, but how would I know if it was or wasn't?
By definition, you won't know who the anonymous super-empowered individuals are...
Post a Comment
On the other hand, let me suggest that 5GW and the anonymous super-empowered individuals is not a new phenomena. It's not easy, and often not painless, but arguably, the Bhudda, Jesus, Mohammed (before his rise to secular power) and others were the anonymous super-empowered individuals of their day.
And, I think we are likely to see the rise of a new religion, but in this day and age, any violence or social/cultural disruptions will happen quickly. Comparatively quickly, anyway - not generations and centuries, but in a generation and decades - it will be a religion on meth. Hell, it could be an anonymous meth addict, or some other denizen of the underclass, that starts it. Certainly there are precedents.
I think it will happen, and for all the talk and discussion, we'll know it when it's over. In fact, the meme and the prophet may already be in the past, and it's just taking a while for society to catch up. I don't think this is the case, but how would I know if it was or wasn't?
By definition, you won't know who the anonymous super-empowered individuals are...
# posted by : Friday, 29 December, 2006
: Friday, 29 December, 2006<< Home
