Superempowerment: The range of effect for each individual soldier ( or terrorist) will be vastly increased even as the economic costs are driven down by market forces and proliferation of dual-use technology to the civilian consumer.
Fluidity: Globalization makes possible virtual armies that are networks of networks that are both resilient and adaptable in a Darwinian sense.
Multidimensional Battlespace: War occurs in the context of everything else – physical space, cyberspace, the logosphere, financial, legal and societal networks – shaping the battlespace itself to the disadvantage of actual and potential opponents will become crucial aspects of strategy and not merely moving more effectively within it.
Autonomous Surrogates: Active regular military forces are seconded by a variety of substitutes to carry some aspect of the warfighting load – PMC’s, NGO’s, Paramilitary and Subnational networks, International Peacekeeping missions and increasingly, robotic agents.
Todays Predator drones and other prototype UAV are going to evolve and inevitably merge with Ai technology so that we will have, shades of science fiction, autonomous war machines that will have basic programing but also the capacity to learn, make independent decisions, cooperate with one another and adapt to changing circumstances on the battlefield.
These however are simply aspects of the emerging warfare and not the strategic purpose behind such a shift that make one generation of warfare different from its predecessor. The rise of 5GW will represent the solution to defeating 4GW forces in the field and here we come to a very troubling moral possibility.
4GW forces like al Qaida erase the distinction between Combatant and non-combatant and target an enemy’s will to resist, often moving submerged witin society itself as a clandestine network structure. Such forces have proven exceptionally difficult to defeat for traditional militaries and as Colonel Hammes pointed out in The Sling and the Stone, 4GW strategy has allowed inferior forces to defeat even the superpowers.
A strong possibility exists that given successive generations of warfare tend to drive ” deeper” into enemy territory, that 5GW will mean systemic liquidation of enemy networks and their sympathizers, essentially a total war on a society or subsection of a society. There is no where ” deeper” for 5GW to go but here. At the high tech end 5GW would be precisely targeted to winnow out ” the bad guys” in a souped-up version of Operation Phoenix but at the low-tech end we could see campaigns that would be indiscriminate, democidally-oriented death squad campaigns that shred 4GW networks by the same actuarially merciless logic that led the Allies to firebomb German and Japanese cities in WWII.
This is a terrible prospect but there is evidence that 5GW tactics of this kind have defeated 4GW Communist revolution in Guatemala and El Salvador, stymied FARC and ELN in Colombia, beat back Islamists in Algeria and the Kurdish PKK in Turkey. Contravening data would include the Hutu militia genocide in Rwanda designed to eviscerate the ethnic supporters of the Tutsi rebels but instead led to the rebels toppling the Hutu regime and spreading disorder to neighboring states.
My efforts here to outline 5GW are purely speculative. A second potential form of 5GW might be Thomas P.M. Barnett’s ” System Administration” based Global Transaction Strategy to export security and connectivity to the Gap, short-circuiting the political appeal of 4GW movements before they grow out of all control. Or we may see both forms used in tandem and even likelier, some new dynamic currently impossible for us to forsee at all.
What is certain is that 4GW movements like the Iraqi insurgency and al Qaida will drive the evolution of warfare to 5GW as nation-states struggle to find solutions to the strategic problem presented by 4GW enemies and the societal disintegration they bring in their wake.
Page 2 of 2 | Previous page
Anonymous:
July 18th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
There are some great links here, thx. I must confess that most of this post is over my head; I’m still trying to understand 4GW, no less 5GW.
I don’t know where this fits into your scheme, and it’s not politcally correct, but Ataturk defeated the islamist imams by hanging them and leaving them on display for all to see. If the modern version is a hit squad that targets radical imams then perhaps that is what is required. However, this seems to be what the Israeli’s have been doing for quite some time, and while this may be successful in reducing the number of attacks, it does not appear to stop the spread of the hatred or the ideology behind it.
Barnabus
Dan tdaxp:
July 18th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Amazing post Mark.
Your comment that There is no where ” deeper” for 5GW to go but here inspired some thoughts on my blog.
Might it be that war is moving deeper into the OODA loop, or even cycling through a Reality-OODA loop?
phil:
July 19th, 2005 at 12:21 am
This is a rich post; there is a lot of food for thought here.
Quick thought: Maybe 5GW is a kind of Manchurian Candidate type thing. An enemy actually tries to get its agents in a democratic country elected to office and then to use that position to undermine it.
Perhaps the Left is already 5GW. In 4GW the enemy attempts to influence the media and culture to undermine a country’s war effort, but maybe in 5GW the enemy seeks to become the country’s media, university and grade school teachers, writers, artists, etc. They become the purveyors of culture. A kind of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” strategy.
mark:
July 19th, 2005 at 5:44 am
Hey Dan
I’ll be featuring your post Tuesday – you had some very insightful contributions to 5GW
Hey Phil,
You’ve outlined something a Norwegian scholar. Frode Lindjerdet (sp.?) has argued about the anti-American Left in Europe – that they’ve been on a calculated campaign to seize control of cultural-educational production
Het Barnabus,
Don’t feel badly. 4GW itself is still controversial as a theory and some military thinkers are questioning the ” generational” model.
Ataturk however had a feudal society to deal with that while very resistant was not capable of mobilizing against his reforms, just rebelling locally. Ataturk also was carrying the immense prestige of having routed the infidels ( Greeks and French and British)- someting the Ottomans had not done for hundreds of years
Anonymous:
July 24th, 2005 at 9:06 pm
I am trying to remember the name of a short story I read as a kid from maybe the early 70’s (Joe Hadleman maybe)?
In it, the future enemy (Red China? I don’t remember), was systematically identifying future potential “good” leaders for the US, and killing them by making it look like accidents.
Zanne:
October 9th, 2006 at 12:26 am
You might want to check that link to Tom Barnett’s piece – it took me to a very naughty site.
Frode Lindgjerdet:
July 6th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Phil&Mark: I have never claimed that there is such a thing as a “calculated campaign to seize control of cultural-educational production”. There is simply no such collective mechanism, or conspiracy if you wish. However, my research suggest that such control have been achieved (school textbooks) and will have consequences for future discourses. But this control have come through a generational shift in academia and the correlation between political allignments and career choice. You will find an equal concentration of liberals within the buisness community.