Should 4GW/5GW Theorist Be Against the State?

Should 4GW/5GW Theorist Be Against the State?

I'm reminded of a recent reference to Hammes, which is related: that he implies that the only way to destroy/defeat 4GW forces is to end globalization. While I think that may be one way, if it is done in a hyper-destructive manner similar to global Armageddon (and this could be a bio assault), I think that way leads out of the generational model. For more, have a look at my post on the OODA and EBO. To sum up:

1. The definition of "EBO" needs updating to remain useful; but it will remain useful, if it is updated and broadened.
2. In fact, each generation of the xGW model needs to be understood as a method of war which focuses on a different "kind" of EBO.
3. The reason we have a theory of EBO (or should have one, provided the theory is expanded and updated) is simply a) that we want to meet objectives through the creation of effects which will take us there, and b) because we are unable to utterly and absolutely kill every member of an enemy host/population.
4. Therefore, absolute destruction should not be considered a type of EBO, nor should it be considered to fall within the framework of xGW; and any theory which either postulates such destruction or is built upon the notion of the likelihood of such destruction automatically falls outside xGW.

But to tie, if loosely here in comment form, this notion of EBO/xGW to your question, there are two points to be considered.

1. First, that the anti-state description of 4GW is purely Lind's (and his disciples'), and I would say that that description places undo burden on the theory -- in fact, corrupts it beyond usability or meaningfulness. While it may be one aspect of a type of 4GW, and while it might be said that nearly all 4GW forces will be against some particular state at some point during their campaign, I do not believe this should be taken as a sign that 4GW is fundamentally against all states everywhere forevermore.
2. Whereas 4GW does seem to have as its focus destructive capabilities -- even if for a time only against a particular state or states -- 5GW as characterized on D5GW will have as its focus construction. The destructive modus operandi and the constructive modus operandi are fundamentally different, although I suppose they may be intimately connected, or both practiced by the same group but with one subordinate to the other.

Jeez, I made tons of grammer errors. Several words are missing. That is what I get for late night blogging. I will not have the ability to correct this until much later tonight.

Curtis: I like the way you defined EBO (EBOv2). EBOv1 (from the US Military) just sounds like hi-tech 2GW to me.

Therefore, absolute destruction should not be considered a type of EBO, nor should it be considered to fall within the framework of xGW; and any theory which either postulates such destruction or is built upon the notion of the likelihood of such destruction automatically falls outside xGW.

I don't think I agree with the above. Destruction of the adversary actor has to fit somewhere into the xGW framework , or that framework itself is fundamentally flawed.

I understand that absolute destruction/annihilation/genocide is not part of EBOv2 but it has to be part of conflict - it is part of conflict - and therefore any useful model of conflict has to include it somewhere. Is the idea of total enemy destruction really just extreme 2GW? I can go for that. Genocide/annihilation as extreme 2GW. Hmmm. Can genocide/annihilation also be in 1GW? Maybe. 3GW? I don't think so. 4GW? No. 5GW? No.

First, that the anti-state description of 4GW is purely Lind's (and his disciples'), and I would say that that description places undo burden on the theory...

I agree. I don't see why two states couldn't practice 4GW against each other. For that matter, I don't see why two states couldn't do 5GW. We see some non-states trying 3GW. I am not saying states will be good at 4GW or 5GW, I'm not saying they won't. States aren't good at 4GW...right now. But they are getting better and learning. Same for 5GW...tough the secrecy things will be a roadblock of sorts depending upon the 5GW style used.

So just like dropping historical timeframe emergence from my view of the xGW framework, I have dropped the idea that 4GW has to have at least one non-state actor. It constrains the framework needlessly.

Curtis mentioned how Hammes suggests that really killing 4GW actors requires ending globalization. Instead, maybe it requires a 5GW solution that completes globalization, and completes connectivity, in the Barnettian sense. Recenty I've been reading the failed state lit, a lot of stuff by Will Reno and Paul Collier. They describe how belligerents motivated by 'greed' tend to see conflict as an equilibrium phase, much in the same sense as Robb discusses GGs. These guys tend to capitalize on the anarchy in their environments by denying the provisioning of public goods. If one thinks about 'connectivity' as a public good, these GGs are monopolizing connectivity by using their dominant and predatory network position to force all other social actors to go through them for access to things that are locally scare and can only be acquired through global networks. If a state existed, it could guarantee 'connectivity' as a public good, and prevent predatory actors from forcing society to go through them for globally acquired items. In doing so, states guarantee a minimum base of connectivity for all citizens, and prevent any one person from becoming so empowered that he de-empowers the rest of society. So, by completing the spread of the state as a social institution across the globe through 5GW means, we prevent 4GW/GG actors from developing their own anti-state or state-within-a-state networks because the state allows all individuals to feel sufficiently empowered. A lot of this plays on a previous post Curtis made awhile back, about empowerment as freedom from responsibility and freedom to be responsible. So while I'm unsure about 4GW as possibly being fought between states, the Barnettian 5GW is absolutely pro-state, and in fact seeks the triumph of the state.

And I definitely have to read up on the EBO posts, I'm still unfamilar.

PurpleSlog,

I understand that absolute destruction/annihilation/genocide is not part of EBOv2 but it has to be part of conflict - it is part of conflict - and therefore any useful model of conflict has to include it somewhere.

Only if you believe a "useful model" must be exhaustive. Anyway, serious question: when was the last time that absolute -- strong emphasis on that word -- destruction was "a part of conflict."? Curious what your answer will be.

As for "0GW", that's a tag-on to the xGW theory, a dumping ground for anything not fitting within xGW theory except to the degree that whatever is labeled "0GW" is thought to bear the relationship of "before" xGW. Substitute "not" for "0" and you get "not-GW."

I don't see why two states couldn't practice 4GW against each other.

The thought is more interesting than that. Recall my speculation about 4GW within the U.S., as a matter of course vis-a-vis politics. Additionally, just as there are state-supported terrorists, there is such a thing as state terrorism (directed against one's own population) in order to sap the will to resist etc. (and to fight any budding alter-states) -- and, recall that Mark Safranski once postulated that Nazi Germany may itself have been trending toward a 4GW type of organizational/operational apparatus. So there are avenues to pursue beyond the Armageddon Lind predicts for states when describing/defining 4GW.

Steve,

We are thinking along the same lines. I think I might spend some more time pondering how a 5GW operation might actually seek anti-state solutions -- provided, of course, that we limit that phrase to the myopic and quite limited definition of "state" as viewed through the lens of Westphalia... -- and whether different types of 5GW or differently-aimed 5GW campaigns may or may not approach solutions which some would call "anti-state."

So, by completing the spread of the state as a social institution across the globe through 5GW means

-- what this might really mean is: an evolution of "statehood', or a change in what constitutes state-ness. There are really two different sub-considerations: 1) what is an actual "state", and 2) what is in our minds when we conceive of "state". The reason I separate those is simply that I can make an argument (perhaps at a later date) that #1 may change very little, in actuality, but perceived changes occurring to #2 are really what is being debated/feared/etc., in all this consideration of state vs non-/anti-state forces.