10 Reasons Why Elections are the Perfect Test Bed for 5GW
Originally published 2/7/08 at Dreaming 5GW.
1) Defined timeframe allows for 5GW organizations to plan to specific points in time and the election cycle allows for a truly strategic planning horizon.
2) Defined geographic areas involved allow for a 5GW organization to precisely define the scale of their operations.
3) 5GW organizational goals may be precisely and measurably defined due to the existing systems in place to progressively measure results in detail.
4) The campaign and election process is already optimized for rapid information dissemination providing ample vectors for meme transference.
5) Well connected political parties and multitude of long-standing issues offer powerful memplexes for a 5GW organization to piggyback or hijack.
6) Previous election cycles have created a vast amount of pre-existing expertise in political manipulation for 5GW organizations to recruit as 5GW affecters or 5GW proxies.
7) Discovery of 5GW manipulations may be conceivably and believably be attributed to the campaign process as ‘business-as-usual’.
8) There is already ‘competition’ built into the campaign and election system that may be able to simulate 4GW vs. 5GW or 5GW vs. 5GW opposition.
9) Election and campaign system is designed to support and protect false-front and proxy organizations.
10) Voters expect to be manipulated by political campaigns and will either allow themselves to be manipulated or resist overt manipulations.
Nuts and Bolts 2
Originally published 2/6/08 at Dreaming 5GW.
addendum to Nuts and Bolts
Memetic Warfare
Another manipulative tactic or strategy of Fifth Generation Warfare, and something that I see as a core element of 5GW theory, is the controlled introduction of specifically tailored memes into systems in order to achieve a specific effect or consilience of affects. This viral spread of thoughts and ideas can be very powerful in influencing behavior and if successfully attached to powerful memeplexes (or groups of memes) can piggyback on their successes and possibly even hijack and redirect them.
Nuts and Bolts
Originally published 1/3/08 at Dreaming 5GW.
Recent discussion on the mechanisms for the manipulations of Fifth Generation Warfare has prompted me to think specifically about how 5GW would work in an operational context. In short, thinking about the ‘nuts and bolts’. I currently envision two main types of 5GW attacks. I am not willing to limit 5GW to these two methods but they present a good starting point for a conversation on putting 5GW into practice.
Black Swan 5GW:
If you haven’t read Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s excellent book The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable, (my review here) you should, it is required reading for 5GW theory. In short a Black Swan is an event that invalidates a system. By definition it is something that you are unprepared for. Black Swan 5GW is used to invalidate systems and rule-sets. Ideally to my mind, the 5GW organization would be able to replace the invalidated system with a new system that achieves its objective, but there may be other reasons for invalidating a system or rule-set. Perhaps a competing rule-set offers better opportunity for 5GW manipulation or perhaps the situation is such that an existing system or rule-set is an impediment to a desirable though painful improvement. Potentially a 5GW organization may prepare for Gray Swans, events that are possible though unpredictable and/or unlikely, yet present opportunity to establish a new system. An example of this might include some sort of natural disaster.
Stimulus / Response 5GW (Automaticity 5GW)
The second type of 5GW sometimes works in conjunction with the first in order to strengthen or reinforce a newly created system. In this type of 5GW, the 5GW organization intentionally triggers a specific rule-set in order to create a specific response. A good example of this is a fire-alarm. When you trigger a fire alarm at an office building typically the local fire department responds. When you trigger the alarm for a forest fire there is a similar response, but that response is most likely different in scale and may involve different responders from a different geographic area. The 5GW organization may trigger a rule-set for any number of reasons, but always to provoke a specific response. It may be to desensitize responders or observers. It may be to decrease the resources and abilities of responders through attrition or (hat tip: TDAXP) cognitive load. It may also be to increase experience in certain situations and thereby increase resiliency versus a competing system or rule-set, or to introduce subtle change into behaviors in certain situations.
As I stated before, I’m not willing to limit 5GW to these two methods of action. 5GW is far too new and complex for that. However, I do see them as core elements of 5GW action . Additionally I would like to note that in isolation I don’t believe either of these methods can be considered a 5GW campaign. A true 5GW campaign would likely entail a great many instances of each of these methods of attack directed at several targets. It is only in the larger scope that the pattern would begin to emerge and the goal of the 5GW organization would be achieved.
Theoretical 5GW Operation: The Pre-Election Hostage Situation
Originally published on 12/1/07 at Dreaming 5GW.
While the candidate him or herself may not necessarily have anything to do with the operation, the better prepared the candidate is to handle the MSM attention and steer the fallout effects the more the candidate will benefit.
The operation may be designed to be as spectacular as possible in order to ensure the greatest possible amount of attention from the MSM. This may involve multiple hostage takers, multiple and possibly simultaneous hostage situations, even acts that will be immediately and repeatedly replayed by the media in order to maximize the visual aspects.
An organization that attempts such an operation is necessarily looking at each of the direct participants; hostage takers, hostages, MSM, emergency / law enforcement personnel and bystanders, as pawns on a chessboard. Even if great care is taken to minimize the risk of injury to any of these parties, there is still the very real possibility that people will be injured or killed in the process.
The hostage takers and any organizations that recruit or support them will need to be very well insulated from the 5GW organization in order to maintain secrecy and deniability. Attacks on candidates and their organizations are not taken lightly. Investigation will be exhaustive and agencies with powerful resources will be involved.
I will admit envisioning the most lurid details of this operation including the movie script situation of the candidate himself or herself personally contacting the hostage takers and brokering the release of the hostages to great media acclaim. I even speculated on how the hostage takers might extract themselves from the situation in order to maintain their anonymity and escape law enforcement or their theatrical demise before the combined attention of the media leaving nothing but questions and incomplete answers. The essential fact remains that any organization that believes the ends justify the means could find utility in this theoretical situation.
XGW: Left of Boom – Right of Boom
Originally published 10/21/07 at Dreaming 5GW.
A New Point of View on the Relationship Between Kinetic Action and XGW.
The Generations of Warfare model is most often viewed as a progression. The term ‘generation’ itself reinforces this, implying the process of one leading to another. As a result, many of the concepts we have studied in our explorations of 5GW in particular, and XGW in general, have their roots in this step-like or ladder-like point of view. A prime example is the consideration that each successive generation is specifically designed to circumvent the relative strength of the immediately previous generation. Another example of progression is the observation that the higher the generation of warfare used by an organization, the more generally dispersed the kinetic activity will be. This point of view contains a great deal of merit and shows consistent results and patterns that help theorists grasp the underlying truths the model contains. However, there are other ways to view XGW that can offer valuable insight.
A New Point of View:
Imagine a continuum in the form of a timeline. In the center of the timeline is a fixed point that represents kinetic action, or the ‘Boom’. To the left of the Boom are events that influence the kinetic action. To the right of the Boom are events that are influenced by the kinetic action. When the operative actions, or the actions that embody the distinctions between each generation of XGW, are placed on the timeline relative to the Boom a very interesting and somewhat striking pattern seems to emerge.
The Operative Actions of XGW
1GW Operative Action: Organization and concentration of mass to move toward or from key points on the field of battle.
Hannibal to Napoleon, the great captains of history knew the key to victory lay in attacking into and from, or holding, the key points of the battlefield. To do this most effectively, they organized their army, and the force represented by its mass, in order to most effectively and efficiently accomplish this. The organization and placement of mass in 1GW puts it just to the left of Boom on the continuum.
2GW Operative Action: Destruction of an opponent’s mass in order to weaken the opponent to the point that resistance is impossible.
As the “King of the Battlefield” artillery ruled the muddy trenches of World War 1, just as air power shattered any resistance inside the “Kill Box” of the First Gulf War, and with the “Shock and Awe” of the Second Gulf War. Both are examples of the 2GW effort to cause enough direct attrition of enemy forces that the opponent is unable to organize and concentrate its mass, becoming unable to effectively resist. However, without the kinetic action the attrition does not occur. This places 2GW just to the right of the Boom.
3GW and 4GW seem to represent a somewhat murky stage where the transition of actual kinetic action to the threat or implied threat of kinetic action causes room to question their placement on the timeline.
3GW Operative Action: Dislocation of the opponent by attacking and defending critical vulnerabilities.
When an opponent is dislocated positionally, functionally, morally or temporally, the opponent loses the ability to oppose effectively, this is the essence of 3GW/Manuever warfare. In relation to kinetics, however, does 3GW move to fight or fight to move? This question has a direct bearing on the placement of 3GW relative to the Boom. While ‘a boom’ may occur before the movement occurs, the dislocative aspect of the movement prior to ‘the Boom’ (or the overwhelming threat of the Boom on a critical vulnerability of the opponent), places 3GW on the timeline farther to the left of both the Boom and 1GW.
4GW Operative Action: Using a disruptive attack or threat of disruptive attack to cause the perception of an unwinnable situation in an opponent, resulting in a loss of morale or will until the opponent is rendered incapacitated.
Even more than 3GW, 4GW employs a threat of kinetic action more than actual kinetic action. At first glance it may seem that the threat of attack always precedes the Boom. However, without the Boom or the perceived threat of the Boom there is no effective attack on the will of the opponent. This places the operative action of 4GW on the continuum farther to the right than the Boom and 2GW.
5GW Operative Action: Manipulation and influence in order to define and shape outcomes and effects.
5GW embodies an overwhelming focus on positional manipulation and shaping of the battlefield so that when kinetic action or the threat of kinetic action occurs the outcome is essentially predetermined. The opponent is, as a result, without resistance because the response is by the target’s own choice or follows a previously established pattern that is familiar to the target. This places 5GW far to the left of 3GW, 1GW and the Boom on the timeline.
The result of placement on the timeline looks something like this:
Conclusions:
The XGW operative actions that take place on the left of the timeline relative to the Boom are positional in nature. Their intent, even if only occurring immediately prior to the kinetic action, is to cause the Boom to best shape the result and accomplish the objective. Operative actions to the right of the kinetic action use the kinetic action itself as leverage or to motivate an opponent. The pattern represented by the arrangement of each generation’s operative action seems to imply an interesting clue to the potential shape of 6GW and other future generations of XGW beyond 6GW.
Author’s Note:
The thinking in this article was inspired by a series in the Washington Post titled Left of Boom. The article chronicles the duel between U.S. Military forces and insurgents on the IED seeded battlefields of Iraq. Tacticians in the U.S. Military have come to look at the explosion of ‘Boom’ of an IED as a point at the center of a timeline with the cat and mouse game of countermeasure, counter-countermeasure, counter-counter-countermeasure occurring to the right of the ‘Boom’. Their effort now is to move the U.S. Military’s focus to the left of the ‘Boom’ and attack the insurgent groups that are planning, improving, manufacturing and emplacing the IEDs. The series is excellent and I highly recommend it.
Fifth Generation Starfish
Originally published 8/13/07 at Dreaming 5GW.
As Thomas L. Friedman describes in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, individuals are ‘super-empowered’ by their access to technology and connectivity, allowing them to act and interact globally. This environment gives them access to an open-source marketplace of ideas and the potential of organizing with others who share their attitudes and ideologies. These organizations may expand knowledge, share music and video, debate obscure topics or act on issues that their members feel strongly about, such as the environment, globalization, religion or politics. With this in mind there is the fascinating possibility for these groups to form and act toward a common goal, possibly becoming practitioners of Fifth Generation Warfare in the context of a decentralized organization.
Imagine a Fifth Generation Starfish, engaging in netwar on a global stage. Imagine an organization that through open-source and parallel design methods incrementally manipulates systems and rule-sets, swarming critical nodes and key decision-makers with multiple, self-organizing attacks that shape responses and influence actions by simultaneously eliminating and offering choices.
Ideology and Doctrine:
The glue that holds together the organization is its ideology and its doctrine. It defines why and how the organization acts, uniting it in common purpose and intent. Members are drawn together because they feel strongly about the purpose of the organization and have a vested interest in it. Fifth Generation Warfare doctrine imposes a long-term planning horizon and a strategic outlook, an ideology married to this sort of mindset has the potential to create powerful and lasting change.
Open-Sources and Circles
The basis of the decentralized organization is a networked collection of individuals who organize themselves into circle, cells or groups. Modern connectivity allows these circles to coalesce from like-minded individuals across the globe, pooling the skills insights and resources of people from many different cultures all united by their common ideology. Members may, in fact, belong to one or more circles, shapers of the organization as their individual skills and resources shape their methods.
Parallel Design
The goals of the individual circles in a starfish organization may be the same, defined by the ideology shared by the members of the organization. The doctrine may also be the same, guided by 5GW thinking. However, the actions of individual circles may be very different, especially if the circles use a parallel design model. The various methods explored through parallel design best capitalize on the available skills and resources of each circle. Members who belong to more than one cell may pass along information and knowledge throughout the network, reinforcing the methods that work and cautioning against methods that have proven unreliable or dangerous or just ineffective. Members may also be moved through the network to places where their skills are in need or may be better utilized.
Security
Starfish organizations offer a different sort of active security. This type of decentralized organization does not offer many targets of consequence and when attacked the loss of an individual arm (or circle) does little lasting harm to the larger organization. The starfish organization makes adjustments in its network and reorganizes, usually becoming more decentralized and consequently more resilient in the process.
Secrecy
Starfish organizations have an inherent secrecy because, in a certain sense, each circle serves as a cutout for every other circle of the organization. Working according to 5GW doctrine this effect is reinforced as each circle organizes its own cutouts, pawns and proxies. Should an operation be traced back to its cell of origin all that is lost is an arm of the starfish, the rest of the organization is unharmed.
Related Reading:
The Lexus and the Olive Tree – Thomas L. Friedman
Networks and Netwars – John Arquilla
The Starfish and the Spider – Ori Brafman and Rod Beckstrom
Related Links:
Laying the Foundations Part 5: Security Through Obscurity?
Originally published on 8/4/07 at Dreaming 5GW.
What is the nature of the secrecy or invisibility of Fifth Generation Warfare?
I have been thinking lately about the idea that 5GW will be secret, or invisible because it is hard to distinguish what is 5GW and what is not. I have also considered, at length, the concept that a 5GW campaign will function at a strategic level that by nature will also be hard to observe, while operationally and tactically it will appear to be acting at a lower rung on the XGW ladder (if at all). I have seen this type of security described before as security through obscurity. Fundamentally speaking, I am not completely happy with that approach. While it may be effective in most cases security through obscurity is essentially a passive defense. Such passive defense is most similar to camouflage or mimicry and while blending into your surroundings, or resembling something you are not, may be effective at some level once that veil is pierced the organization is no longer able to operate. This is why I feel an active defense is something that should be an essential component of 5GW theory.
How it should work:
Fundamentally speaking the 5GW organization should operate by proxy at every possible opportunity. Ideally, there should also be one or more levels of cutouts between the proxies and 5GW organizations. At every opportunity the 5GW organization should be isolated from its operations with its directives and orders moving through highly specialized and designated channels that, brutally and bluntly speaking, when eliminated will leave nothing but dead ends for anyone seeking to unravel a 5GW campaign.
Why it needs to work this way:
An organization using fifth generation warfare undertakes operations in order to provoke a specific reaction or result. It does this best by influencing the opposing aspects of a situation. In short, it works on the offensive and defensive (perhaps also on the neutral) sides of a conflict and plays all ends against the middle. Remember, the result is the goal of the 5GW organization. To best accomplish this the various sides must never realize that they are being manipulated much less that there is an organization working on both sides of a conflict. They must believe they are acting of their own will. They must believe their responses are in their own best interest and must not realize that interest and the reaction to that interest has been carefully conditioned. Secrecy is essential to reach the most optimum conclusion.
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable
Originally published on 7/5/07 at Dreaming 5GW.
“Before the discovery of Australia, people of the Old World were convinced that all swans were white, an unassailable belief as it seemed completely confirmed by empirical evidence. The sighting of the first black swan might have been an interesting surprise for a few ornithologists (and others extremely concerned with the coloring of birds), but that is not where the significance of the story lies. It illustrates a severe limitation to our learning from the observations or experience and the fragility of our knowledge. One single observation can invalidate a general statement derived from millennia of confirmatory sightings of millions of white swans. All you need is one single (and, I am told, quite ugly) black bird.”
The Black Swan deserves a prominent place on the 5G warrior’s bookshelf. The concepts explored by Nassim Nicholas Taleb are the very mechanisms by which a 5GW campaign, as we have explored it, will function. Black Swans strike at the critical vulnerability for which there is no defense because we are not even aware we are vulnerable. As Taleb points out, if on September 10, 2001 it had been reasonably conceivable that terrorists were going to hijack planes and crash them into large buildings the events of September 11, 2001 would be unlikely to have occurred. Identifying these vulnerabilities on the systemic and strategic level is what 5GW is all about.
So, what exactly is a Black Swan event?
“First, it is a outlier, as it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.”
Best of all the text flows in an easy, almost conversational manner (I’ll bet Taleb is a really fun guy to hang around with) and the examples are interesting even when exploring really theoretical territory. However, I think this quote sums up the reason to find this book and study it carefully more than any other.
“ Black Swan logic makes what you don’t know far more relevant than what you do know.”
Find out what you don’t know.
June/July 07 UK Terror Plot: A 5GW perspective
Originally published on 7/4/07 on Dreaming 5GW.
As information about this plot comes out I think I see a 5GW or proto-5GW aspect to it.
It seems that every person in the cell responsible for this plot is not only a foreigner (unlike the London subway bombing which was ‘homegrown’) but a member of the medical profession. I think at last count 2 doctors, a couple of medical students, and a lab technician or two. This tripped my radar and I began thinking “Is this a pattern or is it a deliberate lack of a pattern? Why all foreigners (from Jordan, Iraq and India)? Why all medical workers?”
It also didn’t make sense to me because I immediately thought that ‘terrorists’ with this type of professional training would be better tasked for creating bio-weapons in their basement. These are allegedly rare and valuable skills for terrorists, why are they using these people to emplace car bombs and ram airports. Do they have that many doctors sitting around or do they not have any ambition to release weaponized anthrax or ebola on the world?
But then the newscaster gave me the 5GW angle. Handed it to me on a platter in fact as she began to recite how many foreign medical workers are currently employed by the British healthcare system and how they have a desperate shortage they are straining to fill (900 or so Iraqi doctors alone). And now this will mean the ‘rigorous’ screening foriegn medical workers already undergo before they are hired will need to be even more exhaustive.
That is the 5GW attack!
It had nothing to do with car bombs, airports, or body counts. This 4GW proxy attack was just as effective (maybe more so) in failure as it would have been in success. The terrorism rule set changes little, the system in place looks like it works. The plots were foiled and the terrorists were captured.
The 5GW attack was on the heathcare system of the UK. Are people going to be able to trust their doctor now? Trust is essential between doctors and patients and here is a big wedge to be driven in. Also, as the system is shocked by that distrust the ability of the system to address the shortfall has now been hamstrug.
Rule Set! – System Perturbation! – New Rule set?
Laying the Foundations Part 4: The Fourth Wall
Originally published on 5/18/07 at Dreaming 5GW.
Previous forms of generational warfare are only very rarely deceptive on the strategic level. Even 4GW, as shadowy and elusive as its insurgent practitioners attempt to make it, is essentially very direct and very blatant. A 4GW attack on the will of an opponent must be direct in order to cause the target to respond in the manner desired by the 4GW organization. It is essentially blackmail; I will keep doing this until you give up and there isn’t anything you can do to stop me. The side that blinks first loses.
Here is where I think that 5GW will take off in a different direction from its XGW predecessors. 5GW is all about deception on every level, especially strategic. This is what lends it an inherent secrecy as it either actively conceals its actions or operates on a level of influence that the great majority of people aren’t consciously aware of.
I’ve thought for a long time about drawing an analogy between stage magic or illusion and Fifth Generation Warfare. Recently, discussion (Hat Tip: Soob, and PurpleSlog) has popped up about 5GW and theater and upon further reflection, theater offers an even better possibility as an example of the thought that goes into shaping the process and operationalization of a 5GW campaign. In stage magic, the audience knows that the illusionist is attempting to deceive them. They know that when the magician holds up his right hand the left is probably busy doing something else. People will sit for hours attempting to figure out the ‘trick’ that allows the magician to appear and disappear. After all, once you know how the illusion is performed it ceases to be magic and just becomes a ‘trick’, a deception. It is all part of the game played between the magician and the audience. In a sense, the deception, the secrecy, is tactical and operational and very rarely strategic. Theater, on the other hand, is a different story.
The Fourth Wall (from Wikipedia):
“The fourth wall is part of the suspention of disbelief between a fictional work and an audience. The audience will usually passively accept the presence of the fourth wall without giving it any direct thought, allowing them to enjoy the fiction as if they were observing real events.”
An audience watching a play, a movie or television is separated from the action by what is known as “the fourth wall” and that fourth wall provides the line where the reality ends and the fiction begins. The audience, looking through the fourth wall, are, in a sense, allowing themselves to be deceived on all levels including the strategic.
Want an example? Ever go to a horror movie and have to listen to a young woman three rows back scream every time the monster jumps out at its victims? She knows that nobody is actually getting killed. She knows the monster is the product of make-up, CGI and/or camera tricks. She knows everything before her is a carefully contrived fiction and yet she has suspended her disbelief of what is happening on the screen to the point that she reacts to the events there as if she were a part of the group being preyed upon by the monster. That is, from my point of view, a strategic deception.
With a 5GW campaign the strategic deception is slightly different but still similar enough to draw a strong comparison. The main difference is that fourth wall. In 5GW the fourth wall becomes very hard to discern or disappears altogether. As the 5GW organization operates it very consciously blurs that line between fiction and reality, presenting a situation or set of circumstances in a manner designed to elicit a specific response from its target (or audience). The audience, not knowing where reality ends and fiction begins, responds as if the events before them were reality. They are, in effect, unconsciously deceiving themselves rather than consciously allowing themselves to be deceived. Their rationalization of events in order for those events to fit inside of their preexisting paradigms allows the 5GW organization to influence and manipulate their actions. It even allows the 5GW to, over time, alter those very paradigms in a more direct way. After all, as the cliche goes, actions speak louder than words.
Colonel Hammes Enters the Fifth Generation
Originally posted on 5/4/07 at Dreaming 5GW.
Fourth Generation Warfare Evolves, Fifth Emerges.
Colonel Thomas X. Hammes, USMC, Retired
Military Review May-June 2007
I have great respect for Colonel Thomas X. Hammes. Any time he is mentioned or offers his opinion or analysis in an interview or news article I always pay very close attention. I have always given the highest recommendation for The Sling and the Stone to anyone who has approached me with an interest in the generational warfare framework. I often describe it simply as ‘required reading’. When recently browsing Open Thread V of TDAXP I found a link (hat tip: Phil) to the above article in Military Review and followed it immediately.
I am, at the same time, excited and disappointed.
Let me start with the good part.
I am excited that another military thinker that I admire has begun to explore the concept of 5GW. As far as I am concerned, the old cliché ‘The more the merrier’ is literally true. More is even merrier when it comes from an established author with the credentials and clout to expand the conversation and discussion to new audiences and new viewpoints. This is wonderful and exciting stuff that helps move 5GW from ‘pet theory’ to practical application and proven concept.
Then we get to the bad, or at least disappointing, part.
First off, the article isn’t limited to the concept of 5GW (I wish it was all about 5GW). The first two thirds are about how 4GW has evolved away from Mao’s three-phased insurgency, a shift from military campaigns supported by propaganda operations, to strategic communications campaigns supported by insurgent combat operations. I have absolutely no problem with that. In fact, I agree almost completely with each of the examples he uses to illustrate his point (one exception I will come back to later). I am also intrigued by his exploration of the role of PMCs in 4GW campaigns and will eagerly be watching for future discussion along that line of thought in the media and on blogs that deal more directly with 4GW topics. But since D5GW deals with Fifth Generation Warfare discussion I will delve deepest into the last third of the article and what I found there.
“Like always, the old generations of war continue to exist even as new ones evolve. Today, we see grim 2GW firepower-attrition battles in parts of Africa even as the first hints of 5GW emerge. This should not be surprising—countries that lack the political, social, and economic systems to support new forms of war will continue to use the older forms. Yet a new generation must also evolve and, given the fact that 4GW has been the dominant form of warfare for over 50 years, it’s time for 5GW to make an appearance. We should be able to get some idea of what this new form of war will be by examining how political, social, and economic systems have changed since 4GW became dominant. “
When I first read this I had to smile because it seemed that Colonel Hammes was about to walk down the same road I have been exploring, where the battlefield of 5GW is…
Political,
“Politically, there have been major changes in who fights wars. The trend has been and continues to be downward from nation-states using huge, uniformed armies to small groups of like-minded people with no formal organization who simply choose to fight.”
Economic,
“Economically, we have seen a steady increase in the power of information…The content and delivery of information has accordingly shifted from the mass propaganda of Mao to highly tailored campaigns enabled by the new methods of communication and new social patterns.”
and Social,
“Socially, we have seen a major shift in how communities are formed. People are changing allegiance from nations to causes, a trend dramatically accelerated by Internet connectivity.”
Everything is looking pretty good…
“In sum, political, economic, and social trends point to the emergence of super-empowered individuals or small groups bound together by love for a cause rather than a nation…”
until…
“Employing emerging technology, they are able to generate destructive power that used to require the resources of a nation-state.”
A violent skidding turn away from an exploration of how 5GW works into the technology trap…
“Today, two emerging technologies, nanotechnology and biotechnology, have the power to alter our world, and warfare, even more fundamentally than information technology.”
Ok, if you haven’t stopped reading and are still with me in spite of the gall and temerity of my criticism of Colonel Hammes, allow me to explain the reasoning for my disappointment.
It comes in two parts.
First, technology is a trap in a generational warfare discussion. Panzers don’t make 3GW. The dislocation of an opponent’s mass by a strike at a critical vulnerability makes 3GW. I feel strongly enough about this consideration that I included it as a completely separate Foundations of 5GW post. Technology is a tool and how you use it determines its generational level. For example, use of nanotech to out-mass an opponent is 1GW. Use of nanotech to attrit the mass of an opponent is 2GW. Use of nanotech to dislocate the mass of an opponent is 3GW. Use of nanotech to destroy the will of an opponent is 4GW. Doctrine drives technology. How will 5GW doctrine drive technology? That is the question Colonel Hammes should have explored.
Second, I am not trying to imply that super-empowered individuals and groups are not 5GW, but the bottom line is that to make the generational warfare framework hold water, each successive generation must be able to, and in fact is essentially designed to, defeat the generation one rung lower on the ladder. I see nothing in Colonel Hammes’ thinking that addresses this point. Beside the technology trap, I think this is the biggest hang-up in the whole 5GW discussion. The problem I think is that we, as a society, are so used to being on the defensive, that we don’t often enough ask how 5GW will be, and by necessity should be, used to defeat 4GW opponents. This is an incredibly crucial consideration that must be explored. Bio-weapons are so much more effective the lower you are on the generational warfare ladder that by the time you reach the Fifth Generation they are almost impossible to target. How do you send an anthrax-laced letter to the 4GW al-Queda organization? How does a bio-weapon defeat an insurgency in Afghanistan?
But wait. There is hope! There is light at the end of that tunnel!
Colonel Hammes is so very close. He just needs to adjust his perspective and look at a couple of his own examples from a different point of view.
His example of the October 2001 anthrax attacks can be an example of a 5GW operation, but not in the way he explains. From his point of view the attack was on the legislative body of a nation-state that…
“…Using an advanced biological weapon in support of an unknown cause. This individual or group disrupted the operation of Congress for several months, created hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up costs, and imposed mail screening requirements (and associated costs) that are still in effect today—not a bad payoff for a few ounces of anthrax and some postage.”
I submit that this qualifies as a 5GW attack only if the intent of the attacker was to ultimately strengthen the security of the USPS regarding bio-attacks. Do you see? As an attack on the U.S. Congress the letters failed miserably. However, as an attack on a flaw in our postal security it succeeded admirably and now a similar 4GW bio-attack will be less likely to succeed.
A second example of where I see Colonel Hammes almost making that crucial connection to 5GW is his evolved-4GW example from the first part of the article examining Hezbollah’s 2006 summer war with Israel.
Hammes starts out with his definition of 4GW, an approach I take myself with 5GW.
“Fourth generation warfare uses all available networks—political, economic, social, and military—to convince the enemy’s political decision makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for the perceived benefit. It is an evolved form of insurgency.”
He then continues and shifts into a frame that I think is better suited to 5GW than 4GW.
“The key concept in this definition is that 4GW opponents will attempt to directly attack the minds of enemy decision makers. The only medium that can change a person’s mind is information. Therefore, information is the key element of any 4GW strategy. Effective insurgents build their plans around a strategic communications campaign designed to shift their enemy’s view of the world.”
Just substitute 5GW for 4GW and you are very close to the concepts we explore here at D5GW.
I understand what he is trying to show is the shift to strategic communications campaigns as the central effort of 4GW, but for it to still be 4GW it must continue to be an attack on the will of the target.
He shows this in his Hezbollah example. An example that, when viewed as a well-planned sequential 5GW campaign , shows that the target of Hezbollah was not Israel or the West, but rather the people of southern and central Lebanon who, after being caught in the cross-fire of a conflict initiated and brought down on them by Hezbollah, now look to Hezbollah as patron and protector because of their valiant defense of the land against the predations of the Israeli invaders and Hezbollah’s immediate ability to provide the Lebanese people aid in rebuilding while the government(s) dithered. It wasn’t a 4GW attack on the will of Israel, it was a 5GW attack re-directing the will and shaping the worldview of the Lebanese people.
In all, I have to say I am more excited than disappointed by Colonel Hammes’ emergence into the 5GW discussion. Colonel Hammes, welcome to the world of 5GW!
A Kinder, Gentler Definition
Originally published on 2/23/07 at Dreaming 5GW.
For the past few days I’ve been kicking my Working Definition up against Curtis’ Kinder, Gentler War, just trying to see if it stuck and what it stuck to. As a result, I’ve come up with a new definition that I think is more in line with the direction of Curtis’ post. In the interest of full disclosure I do not think the direction Curtis is going with his consideration is “warfare” by any kinetic definition. Personally, I’ve never been a member of the flowers and rainbows crowd. I view warfare with the mindset of leverage, force and the exploitation of critical vulnerability and that’s a pretty bloodthirsty outlook to approach this idea from but I’ll give it my best shot. My greatest fear in this line of thought is that if 5GW emerges to be primarily shaped by the practice of co-optation through love of an enemy or opponent as explored by Curtis it could run the risk of being far enough outside of the generational warfare model that it may not be considered by many to be a part of that framework. I will say that I do think where Curtis is going is an expression of 5GW thought. Giving an enemy a victory that is also your victory has to be the ultimate expression of the manipulation of actors and domains. I’m just not sure it is the best or most complete expression of Fifth Generation Warfare.
A Kinder, Gentler Definition of Fifth Generation Warfare:
A theory of warfare(?) premised upon the manipulation actors in order to create a situation where all sides are working toward a result that is perceived by the actors to be beneficial to their own personal goals and desires.
Working Definition V. 2.3
Originally published on 1/12/07 at Dreaming 5GW.
Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): An emergent theory of warfare premised upon manipulation of multiple economic, political, social and military forces in multiple domains to effect positional changes in systems and achieve a consilience of effects to leverage a specific goal or set of circumstances. (Arherring 1/12/07)
And a bonus definition.
Consilient effect: a ‘jumping together’ of effects by the linking of effects across domains in order to create a pattern for action. (Arherring 1/12/07)
Laying the Foundations Part 3: Technology
Originally published on 1/6/07 at Dreaming 5GW
One thing that I have always tried to keep in the forefront of my thoughts as I ponder the theory and doctrine of Fifth Generation of Warfare is to keep, for the most part, technology out of the picture. As I see the Generational Warfare Model, technology has virtually nothing to do with the Generational level of a force. The doctrine of a Generation has nothing to do with its tools of war. Doctrine drives technology. Technology does not drive doctrine.
So what does this mean for 5GW?
I am putting this in with the other ‘Foundations’ articles because I think this is an essential consideration to keep in mind. Many are guilty (myself included. I, like many in the States, are gadget-oriented) of looking at the latest and greatest in technology and waxing rhapsodic about how this is going to change the face of war. This is a grave error. If technology drove doctrine we would have to re-invent the art of war with each new weapon.
Technology does not drive doctrine!
This applies even to the internet with all of its myriad abilities to connect people, satellite television with its broad reach, and cell phones with their ability to quickly transfer information. All of these examples of growing and evolving technology are merely tools. In themselves they do not define or create 5GW theory or doctrine. True, tech makes the 5GW battlefield more complex. Tech offers 5GW greater reach as it manipulates systems and pursues goals. Tech offers better predictive modeling and forecasting. However, none of these, not one, actually has anything to do with how 5GW works. 5GW effects are felt through multiple domains: social, economic, political, military and everything in between. These domains are all connected even without technology and it is with those connections that the Fifth Generation warriors will operate. As a result, Fifth Generation Warriors will push technology in directions today we can only imagine.
Recommended Reading: The Starfish and the Spider
Originally published on 12/26/06 at Dreaming 5GW.
Spiders have:
Centralized organization.
A head, body, legs and eyes.
A leader and a hierarchy.
A central headquarters.
Starfish have:
Decentralized organization.
Interchangeable parts.
No leader or hierarchy.
No headquarters.
They may look much the same, but they are very, very different
The Starfish and the Spider is a wonderfully clearly written and fascinating plunge into the emergence of decentralized organizations and how they are coming to in many ways replace their centralized counterparts.
For consideration of 5GW theory the utility is obvious all throughout the text.
Pick it up at your local or online bookstore or at your community library. It’s a quick read but a rewarding one.
Laying the Foundations: Part 2 Iterative Design
Originally published on 12/12/06 at Dreaming 5GW
As discussed in Part 1 of this series, sequential design, also known as the Waterfall model, provides a framework for a 5GW campaign where the goal is focused, its requirements are known and fixed, and the timeframe for the 5GW operations is of a known length. If the 5GW effector is confronted with a goal that is broad in scope, with requirements that aren’t fully known or understood and may, in fact, be subject to change, then the Waterfall model is unlikely to be as effective. Iterative design, however, offers a great deal more utility.
As far as software design is concerned iterative design works much better than sequential design. As a result a number of design models have been created. Some of the best known of the iterative models are Rational Unified Process (RUP), Dynamic Systems Development Method (DSDM), Rapid Application Development (RAD), Agile and Spiral. Each model offers a slightly different process that addresses problems found in software design. Some of these refinements may also have application for 5GW iterative design but for the purposes of this discussion of 5GW I will use a basic iterative process as illustration.
Iterative design is essentially a method of developing a system that becomes incrementally more complex. Generally, it starts small with a core organization and a goal to be reached and, with each iteration, adds capability.
The basic iterative process follows this model:
Phase 1:
Initial Planning (Setting the Goal, Envisioning the Strategy, Creating / Organizing the Prototype)
Phase 2:
Operational Planning
Design
Analysis
Implementation
Phase 3:
Deployment or Launch
Phase 4:
Testing and Evaluation
The initial planning phase is the only part of the iterative process that occurs in isolation after the first operation is launched. After the launch of the first operation the iterative cycle runs in all phases simultaneously with new operations (iterations) launching as they become viable.
Initial Planning:
There are three key items that must be explored in the initial planning phase of an iterative design model for it to have utility in a 5GW campaign. The first item is to define the goal. Many times this will involve also defining the factors that influence the reaching of this goal. To put this process into a context, if Tom Barnett or another person or organization were creating a 5GW organization to ‘Shrink the Gap’, then Tom Barnett’s book The Pentagon’s New Map would be an example of this type of thinking. The second item in the initial planning phase is the creation of an overall plan for the 5GW campaign, an exploration of the possible domains that may be manipulated. For an example, again, I will reference Tom Barnett but this time his book A Blueprint for Action. Item number three is to plan the creation of the organization for the 5GW campaign to build around. This is the prototype for the 5GW campaign that will have the two-fold purpose of launching the first 5GW operation of the campaign and serving as the core upon which the campaign expands. I don’t have an example for this item, but I understand Dr. Barnett is going to be writing another book that might have something to do with a concept called Development in a Box…
Operational Planning:
Design:
Analysis:
Implementation:
In the sequential design model each of these steps are separate with the next step taken only after the previous step has been totally completed. In the iterative design model each of these happen simultaneously. Based on the vision and requirements laid down in the Initial Planning, the design and implementation of each operational plan is constantly analyzed and revised with better adaptability and flexibility than sequential design as a benefit of using a less rigorously defined set of requirements. When the design is robust enough to be considered effective it moves on to the launch phase. However, the planning, design, analysis and implementation continue adding capability and adding new operations as results of the 5GW campaign is fed back into the planning process.
Testing and Evaluation:
In many ways this is the most important aspect of the iterative design model because it, in effect, controls the progression of the next iteration of the campaign. Testing and evaluation take place simultaneously with the launch and operation of the 5GW campaign. It is here that it is determined what is working and what is not. Trends are established to show movement in relation to goals and requirements and as a result goals and requirements are expanded or tightened, created or discarded, to better focus effects and better shape the process that will take place in the next iteration.
The greatest utility in the iterative design process is its agility and flexibility. As the iterative 5GW organization grows it gains information and the ability to use that information in a number of ways and inside a number of domains that becomes larger and more effective with each iteration.
Laying the Foundations: Part 1 Sequential Design
Originally published on 12/2/06 at Dreaming 5GW
Updated: With Graphic by Curtis Weeks
Re-Updated: to give credit where credit is due –hat tip to TDAXP–
While searching the internet for others who are working on 5GW or its equivalent, I ran across an article on Phil Jones’s ThoughtStorms wiki where he was plucking interesting bits and phrases from Dan TDAXP‘s Dreaming 5th Generation War.
“5th Generation Wars will be created with Waterfall Development? We can see what 5GWs will be like by looking at what Waterfall Development is like:
· Requirements must be known a long time before fighting begins
· Requirements will be rigid and non-adaptable
· Long Time between proposal and victory “
While at the time I didn’t know what Waterfall Development meant in this context the Wikipedia soon enlightened me.
“The waterfall model is a sequentialsoftware development model (a process for the creation of software) in which development is seen as flowing steadily downwards (like a waterfall) through the phases of requirements analysis, design, implementation, testing (validation), integration, and maintenance.”
What does this mean for 5GW theory? Well, along with its sister Interative Design (an article for another day), this provides a framework by which 5GW may be organized and executed.
In all fairness, and just so somebody won’t immediately point it out to me, sequential design models like Waterfall don’t work for software design. I know this. It features prominently in all of the research I have done on the topic. I’m not interested in software design so I’m going to see what happens when Waterfall is applied to 5GW.
Since in the waterfall model each step is a sequential progression I will follow the phases of the original model as I discuss its 5GW utility.
Requirements Specification:
This is the phase of Waterfall that trips up software design. If your requirements (or goals) are possibly going to change or are too broad to be approached in one project then Waterfall is not for you. You will need to look into an Iterative design model. If, however, your goal is able to be set in stone and is of a scope or timeframe that it can and should be attacked all at once (such as the outcome of an election) then the Waterfall model certainly could act as a framework.
Design:
This is where the imagination and vision get to run wild as a blueprint for the 5GW campaign is created. As 5GW seeks to manipulate as many domains as possible any avenue of influence can, and should, be considered for its ability to apply leverage. With all of the planning up front in this manner the 5GW organization also has the ability to keep the 5GW campaign known to a very small number of people. This should be recognized as a very important security consideration.
Construction:
The organization itself is now created to implement the blueprint laid down in the design phase. Since all of the planning is done before this phase those who actually carry out the design may have no idea what the overall goal of the 5GW campaign is, merely their small part. This allows proxies and contractors outside of the 5GW organization to be used with a reduction in the risk of discovery of intent.
Integration:
In the software world this would be where all of the individual modules of a project would be combined together. As far as 5GW is concerned I see this as the phase where the projected effects of the operations in each of the domains are fine tuned to ensure that the effects become synergistic. Working over multiple domains this could potentially be one of the most important phases of the model for 5GW.
Testing and Debugging (a.k.a. Verification):
When considering how each of the phases would apply to 5GW this is the one that gave me the most trouble. I do, however, see a certain utility is setting an initial goal short of the ultimate goal for the 5GW campaign to attempt to attain so that its effects can be judged. This could also be a good indicator of the ultimate success of the campaign.
Installation:
Once the campaign is fully planned, implemented and fine-tuned its operations go forward in earnest.
Maintenance:
This would be the follow-up after the goal has either been reached or is determined to not be able to be reached (such as the election is over). In a 5GW context this could be reinforcing success by raising a new organization in order to maintain and capitalize on the newly created situation. It could also mean reconfiguring the 5GW organization in order to be ready for the next project. In the event of failure (or perhaps success?) it would also be during this phase that bridges are burned and links dissolved so that the 5GW organization fades from view.
In summary, given a limited goal with a limited, and concrete, set of requirements the Waterfall model of design looks to have a great deal of utility for the organization and design of a 5GW campaign. It offers advantages in secrecy and with its planning done before operations commence it has the ability to fine-tune its focus to limit distraction or ‘mission creep’. It does have the drawback of being inflexible and may lack the ability to opportunistically respond to changing events that have not been planned for.
Laying the Foundation of 5GW
Originally posted on 11/21/06 at Dreaming 5GW
As Curtis mentioned in an article on Phatic Communion (Which I am glad he is getting back to)
I suppose, there’s only so much that can be said about a dream until you realize that the dream needs to be fleshed out. Then comes the hard part: of actually operationalizing the thing, making it actionable, etc.
Indeed, it is a hell of a lot easier to imagine a football game plan than to lace-up the cleats, strap on the pads, hike the ball and execute it. 5GW is no different and in fact it may be that until somebody actually attempts a serious 5GW campaign and comes back to tell the tale, the scope of what is required and the planning necessary may not truly be understood.
With that rather daunting fact firmly in mind I am going to attempt to lay the foundation for 5GW organization. The first article in the series will be labeled ‘Part 1’ and I have no idea how many parts will be required, only that I attempt to approach it in bite-sized chunks that when taken together will act as a framework for what a 5GW organization will look like, how it will organize itself, and how it will plan its operations.
Working Definition V. 2.0
Originally published on 11/21/06 at Dreaming 5GW
Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): An emergent theory of economic, social, political and military conflict premised upon manipulation of systems through influence in multiple domains to achieve a specific goal or set of circumstances. (Arherring 11/20/06)
5GW: The Vertical and The Horizontal
Originally published on 11/5/06 at Dreaming 5GW
“There is nothing wrong with your television set. Do not attempt to adjust the picture. We are controlling transmission. If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume. If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper. We can reduce the focus to a soft blur, or sharpen it to crystal clarity. We will control the horizontal. We will control the vertical. For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear. You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to… The Outer Limits.”
The Outer Limits— Opening narration – The Control Voice – 1960s
In a previous post I set down a list of topics that I wished to explore in greater detail. One in particular, the ability (requirement?) of a 5GW organization to work as horizontally as possible, has risen to the top of the list mostly because of how horizontally or vertically a 5GW organization operates has a direct bearing on many of the other listed topics. I also give a great deal of credit to Dan TDAXP who has some very interesting comments on the above post and who, I think, has made a very important contribution to the generational warfare model with his post “Making a Science of the Generations of War.”
“This can be accomplished by defining “generation,” or even better its symbol “G,” as a scale. It seems to be that “G” measures the kinetic intensity of conflict, which every new G being approximately 20 times less intense than the one below it.
This holds up under a first analysis. Pre-Modern Warfare (the Zeroth Generation of Modern Warfare, “0GW,” about 0Gs) is unremittingly genocidal. If the AD 1900s had the same fatality-from-war rate as the 6000s BC, we should have seen something like two billion war deaths. We might say that form the dawn of man to the dawn of agriculture war meant from measuring around 0.1 Gs on the kinetic intensity scale to .9 Gs.
Or think of it another way: 0G Warfare focuses on ending an enemy’s ability to fight by killing their men. By the time we get to 4G Warfare almost none of the battle is in the field, but in the mind’s of men who will live regardless. This 5GW we talk of seems to be even more mental and less physical, seeking to leave the men, material, and even will of the enemy essentially unchanged”
TDAXP
This is an incredibly interesting consideration that I hope he continues to explore.
The way I see 5GW developing, what makes it a new generation of warfare, is its effecting change through the context of systemic manipulation. Mostly this has been expressed as creating system perturbations in order to change or create rule-sets.
Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): an emergent theory of warfare premised upon influencing change through manipulation of multiple systemic levels. (Arherring 11/5/06)
It is in this working definition and in Dan TDAXP’s “G” theory that I see an immediate application that answers, or at least sheds some light on my question of horizontal action by a 5GW organization. I will sum it up like this:
The lower the “G” the more vertical, kinetic or direct the action. The higher the “G” the more horizontal, indirect and non-kinetic, the action.
It is from this that how vertically or horizontally a 5GW organization acts has a great deal of bearing on the size and shape of the organization.
The Vertical:
As Global Guerilla enthusiasts are quick to point out, it is much easier to destroy (or threaten to destroy) than it is to build, and I think that is generally true. It stands to reason that a 5GW attack with a lower “G” generally requires a smaller more simple organization, even shrinking down to the size of an individual with a goal. In compensation for its size, its methods of gathering and disseminating information may need to be increasingly open-sourced. This effective ‘sub-contracting’ of knowledge, resources and abilities, carries an inherent risk of discovery and disruption. Its actions, being more often larger in scale and more often kinetic, are also harder to keep secret in their source, and harder to influence after the attack has been launched. The trade off is that the more vertical 5GW organization’s actions will likely require less lead time for preparation and events outside the 5GW organization’s control are less likely to make actions less effective.
The Horizontal:
A more horizontal approach, denoted by a higher “G”, generally requires a larger, or at least more complex and / or resource rich, organization in order to effect change in as many diverse ways as possible. Because the horizontal approach has the potential to include an integral diversity of knowledge and information, this organization can be more closed source. Being more horizontal in scope and spreading its smaller attacks out over a larger area of more diverse domains of action, this type of 5GW may have a higher level of inherent secrecy after attacks have been initiated (If nobody knows anything is happening, they won’t be looking for a culprit.). A longer period of preparation will also make the more subtle actions of the horizontal 5GW organization possible and more synergistic in effect. After operations have been initiated the longer preparatory time may also allow the more horizontal 5GW organization to guide and adjust the effects of its actions. There is a possible disadvantage in that when the more horizontal 5GW group is organizing and preparing, outside events may cause it plans, or even its goal, to become irrelevant.
So, is there a requirement for a 5GW organization to work as horizontally as possible?
My answer is: Yes, 5GW will be at its best when working as horizontally as possible.
Also, should an organization plan for actions lower in “G” (higher in direct kinetic activity) it may be more effective to use 4GW or 3GW paradigms which are optimized for a more kinetic approach than 5GW is emerging to embody. In the end, based on its goal, its personnel and its resources, the 5GW actor will have to find a balance of vertical and horizontal actions.
‘Working Definition’ of 5GW and Topics of Exploration
Originally published on 10/28/06 at Dreaming 5GW
One of my main goals here at Dreaming 5GW is to establish a definition of Fifth Generation Warfare. My hope is to be able to explain the general concept of 5GW in a short paragraph. With that in mind I have started with a ‘working definition’. This ‘working definition’ is by no means carved in stone. It is an acorn that has a very long way to go before it can be called a tree.
My ‘working definition’ currently reads:
Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): an emergent theory of warfare premised upon strategically influencing change in systemic rule-sets through manipulation of multiple horizontal systems. (Arherring 10/21/06)
This ‘working definition’ reflects my current thinking that the progression of rule-set, system perturbation, new rule-set is the process 5GW will employ in its operations. I realize this progression is nothing new and often is a result of military operations, but unlike previous generational warfare where new rule-sets following system perturbations are a side effect, it is the directed focus on this process as method of action that I feel makes it a new generation concept.
To go along with this ‘working definition’ I have a list of topics that I wish to explore in more detail. Some I feel will have a direct effect on the shape of 5GW to come and some are merely topics that I think will be interesting to consider in light of 5GW.
This list currently contains (in no particular order):
Command push and recon pull in 5GW operations.
The roles and types of system perturbations.
The roles and types of rule-sets.
5GW as stage magic, Illusion or sleight-of-hand.
5GW as con game, flim-flam or grift.
The inherent (?) secrecy of 5GW.
The distinction between kinetic and non-kinetic actions.
The consideration of creative destruction.
The consideration of shaping a battle space.
The practice of warfare by proxy.
Open and Closed Source organizations applied to 5GW.
The ideal size of a 5GW organization.
The ability (requirement?) of operating on all sides of a conflict.
Increasing and decreasing resiliency as a 5GW manipulation.
The ability (requirement?) to operate as horizontally as possible.
The role of networks and new technology.
My intent is to revise the ‘working definition’ as I consider each of these topics to reflect my increased understanding of the material. Indeed, the real purpose of the ‘working definition’ is to generate more questions.
Rule-Sets, System Perturbations and 5GW
Originally published on 10/14/06 at Dreaming 5GW
System Perturbation: A situation that causes a break down in, or invalidation of, a system level rule-set
Rule-Set: The underlying principles (groups of rules) that define and govern norms of behavior and conduct.
Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): The strategic mindset premised upon creating or manipulating a system perturbation in order to change an existing rule-set or replace an obsolete rule-set. (10/14/06 Arherring)
As 5GW is an emerging and developing theory, trying to carve it in stone at this point would be foolish. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I am going to stick the above definition as my working definition. The definitions of system perturbation and rule-set are taken from Tom Barnett among others but reflect my personal understanding of the concepts.
As I wrote previously in Welcome to the World of 5GW, there are multitudes of ways people are approaching the theory of 5GW. These approaches are mostly focusing on the execution of 5GW rather than its underlying principles, what it will look like more than why it looks like that. I can understand the reasoning for this approach though I notice that what people see in 5GW execution seems to reflect a great deal of their previous theories. The three example scenarios I used in Welcome to the World of 5GW were; memetic engineering, the super-empowered individual, and Sysadmin. I will confess that in the interests of appealing to as many readers as possible I was attempting to make them sound as different as possible.
They are not. In reality they are virtually identical…
Way down deep at the very core each of them is, in effect, creating or reacting to a system perturbation and seeking to create either a new rule-set defined by the 5GW organization, or a defined situation where a new rule-set will emerge.
Memetic Engineering:
It does not matter what the meme is as long as it causes a desired system disruption. It can be E. Coli in the spinach or an anti-war movement. If it suits the needs of the 5GW organization that meme will be propagated until it invalidates the desired rule-set. The 5GW organization will then move to either establish the new rule-set or influence those who will.
Rule-set – System perturbation – New rule-set
Super-empowered individuals:
A catastrophic ‘Black Swan’ certainly would cause a great many rule-sets to be placed in flux. Whether or not the 5GW organization is actually responsible for the ‘Black Swan’ is irrelevant. I am sure some organizations will be ruthless enough to do so but as far as theory goes it isn’t a necessary element for the 5GW organization to perform, the system perturbation and the resulting 5GW opportunity is.
Rule-set – System perturbation – New rule-set
Sysadmin:
The example put forward by Tom Barnett in The Pentagon’s New Map involves the dichotomy of Leviathan and Sysadmin. In this example unless a system perturbation already exists (MoOTW) the 2GW / 3GW Leviathan is responsible for the system perturbations where and when deemed necessary by preemptively fighting the battles. Afterward it is the job of the 5GWish Sysadmin to fight the peace, a lasting peace imposed at the rule-set level, not at the barrel of a gun.
Rule-set – System perturbation – New rule-set
In summary, as I see 5GW right now, this progression of; rule-set, system perturbation, new rule-set, is what defines 5GW. The methods can, and will, vary so greatly that they will in many ways appear completely different, but their effects are the same. A spreading meme or a ‘Black Swan,’ or a Sysadmin operation without this progression is merely pop-culture / sensationalism, terrorism, or an ineffective reconstruction effort.
Red Herrings 
Recent Comments