5GW Lexicon

Analysis Paralysis

2010-11-25T13:38:48Z

Over-analysis of any event, situation, or plan of action which prevents the possibility of forward movement is said to lead to analysis paralysis.

The term has been applied to 5GW theory to describe how targets of 5GW may react to the discovery that some form of 5GW may be occurring, or even to the discovery that an opponent is merely capable of conducting 5GW, without any verifiable proof of an actual 5GW campaign. Excessive analysis without verifiable proof of the existence of a 5GW campaign may lead to individual or organizational paralysis that prevents a coherent response to any actual 5GW campaign -- whether that campaign is already in motion or has yet to be implemented. Indeed, in extreme cases the onset of analysis paralysis may create a paranoia preventing responses to many other changes in the environment besides those caused by any 5GW campaign.

The term analysis paralysis may also be used, though less clearly, to describe an organization that is structurally incapable of effective action due to inefficient bureaucracy. If no clear chain of command is present, or else a complex system of redundancies and/or authorizations are required before any action may be taken, the organization may suffer from institutional analysis paralysis.

In even more general terms, analysis paralysis describes a system focused upon itself, or upon its own problem-solving and/or operational processes, that becomes incapable of adapting to, or reorienting in response to, new realities in the larger environment.

Effector

2010-11-07T20:38:08Z

A term originally used by Curtis Gale Weeks to designate those actors who initially plan and put into motion any 5GW campaign; or, in any case, those who are aware of the 5GW being conducted, including its scope and ultimate goals, and who consciously work to ensure its success.¹

The term has a history of use in various scientific and technological contexts, as well as a generic meaning to describe "One who brings about a result or event; one who accomplishes a purpose,"² but the term was adopted into 5GW discussion in order to distinguish between those fully aware of the 5GW being conducted and those whose actions cumulatively bring about a successful conclusion to the 5GW operations being waged but are merely co-opted players, pawns, or proxies unlikely to have more than a vague awareness of the existence of the 5GW campaign (if any).

The term effectors often appears as part of a phrase, 5GW effectors. Various synonyms historically used within the discussion of 5GW theory: 5GWer, 5GWarrior, 5GW Warrior, 5GW Operator, SecretWarrior.

¹ 5GW Effectors @ Dreaming 5GW.

² Webster's Online Dictionary.

Iterative Model, The

2010-11-06T16:38:54Z

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.

(Arherring @ Red Herrings¹)

Arherring first outlined a Waterfall Model for the prosecution of 5GW and then outlined an Iterative Model. The former would be ideal "where the goal is focused, its requirements are known and fixed, and the timeframe for the 5GW operations is of a known length," but for cases in which much is unknown and the timeframe likely to be fluid, or indeterminate, an Iterative Model which allows for frequent adaptation of goals, operations, and scope would be more useful for conducting 5GW.

The phases suggested by Arherring for an Iterative Model of 5GW operations:

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

In the first cycle of this iterative process, the initial phase happens in isolation; after which, all four phases will occur simultaneously as new goals, obstacles, and so forth in multiple domains (or directions) become apparent and are addressed by the 5GW effectors.

See: The Waterfall Model

¹ "Laying the Foundations: Part 2 Iterative Design" @ Red Herrings

Waterfall Model, The

2010-11-05T19:46:16Z

But just as being “fast” is more important than being completely “right” in maneuver war, being secret is more important than being completely “right” in 5GW.

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
(Dr. Dan Abbott @ tdaxp.com¹)

Dr. Abbott first proposed the Waterfall Model as a useful tool for visualizing a 5GW operation's approach toward the creation of new systems or alterations of systems: The 5GW goals will be planned, the plan will be analyzed against the prevailing conditions, an operational design will be developed from that analysis, and the operations will be implemented. Unlike other forms of systems planning (e.g., prototyping), a Waterfall approach would not require all participants in the implementation to know of the original plans and goals of the 5GW effort, thus enabling secrecy to be maintained.

Blogger and Dreaming 5GW contributor Arherring eventually expanded the Waterfall Model while also suggesting that the Model would be useful only for 5GW efforts in which "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)"; for other efforts, an iterative design model would be more useful.² The steps in the sequential Waterfall Model proposed by Arherring:

Requirements Specification
Design
Construction
Integration
Testing and Debugging (Verification)
Installation
Maintenance

See: The Iterative Model

¹ "Dreaming 5th Generation War" @ tdaxp.com.

² "Laying the Foundations: Part 1 Sequential Design" @ Red Herrings.

Rubicon

2010-11-01T23:08:08Z

Historically, the river Rubicon represented a border between the Roman province of Cisalpine Gaul to the north and Italy proper to the south. Governors of Cisalpine Gaul were also generals able to command troops through the legal right of imperium but were forbidden to exercise imperium within Italy proper; to cross south over the Rubicon with troops would make them outlaws. In 49BC, Julius Caesar broke the law by crossing the Rubicon with one legion, the Legio XIII Gemina, on his way to Rome, thus igniting a civil war that ultimately led to the end of the Republic. After crossing the Rubicon, Julius Caesar is reported to have said, "The die is cast!" -- meaning, he knew he had passed a point of no return the moment he broke the law.

The idiom Crossing the Rubicon has come to mean a deliberate crossing of a point of no return. In 5GW theory, the term Rubicon has come to represent the point after which the fate of a target of 5GW is set or unalterable. In the sense that the target has been influenced to cross that point, his crossing can be considered deliberate; however, this does not mean that he knew at the time of crossing that it would be a point of no return. Once a target of 5GW has crossed the Rubicon, the discovery that he has been a dupe or pawn or target of 5GW will make no difference to the outcome.

Consilient Effects

2010-10-31T22:38:34Z

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.

Consilient effect: a ‘jumping together’ of effects by the linking of effects across domains in order to create a pattern for action. (Arherring @ Red Herrings)

In an early definition of 5GW, blogger Arherring utilized the concept of consilience to describe consilient effects which might be achieved by the manipulation of diverse domains normally considered in separation or isolation from one another. Such manipulation would create emergent narratives or patterns which would motivate diverse actors to act in ways that would achieve a larger, system-wide result (perhaps a change in system rule-sets) even if the individual actors do not perceive the consilience that is occurring or indeed do not have a common understanding of the ultimate, system-wide result of their actions.

Although consilience itself may be said to describe primarily receptive capabilities insofar as those operating within distinct disciplines or domains become receptive to the discoveries made by others working in other disciplines or domains, the possibility of creating consilient effects consciously in an effort to alter exterior realities rests in the understanding that those who are receptive will actively utilize what they have learned.

The term consilient effects may describe the emergent narratives or observations of those who have been targeted by 5GW in diverse domains as they become aware of the realities of other domains, through which they are motivated to act in particular ways; or, the term may describe the actual, ultimate physical results of so many actions in diverse domains by actors so motivated.

See: Consilience

Consilience

2010-10-31T21:18:31Z

A term popularized by the sociobiologist E. O. Wilson¹ but apparently first coined by William Whewel in his studies on the history of science, consilience has come to describe the way in which different academic disciplines or scientific disciplines interrelate and may interoperate. Truths or discoveries in one discipline may bear upon the pursuits of other disciplines simply because all scientific pursuit examines the same base reality; or, insofar as particular disciplines may be thought of as unique and separate systems of scientific pursuit devoted to studying particular systems within the natural world, they are nonetheless subsystems of the larger system which we would call reality and are studying particular subsystems of the larger system we would call the world, nature, or the universe. To the degree that any scientific discipline discovers truths concerning the particular system it studies, those truths could be said to describe aspects of the larger system and thus may bear upon the scientific pursuits of other disciplines.

Mark Safranski of the blog Zenpundit has related this idea of consilience to the idea of resilience, suggesting that high levels of consilience between the nodes or persons and structures of an organization may enable a higher degree of resilience.²

See: Consilient Effects, Resilience

¹Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge @ Amazon.com.

²Beyond Resilience: The Power of Consilience in Networks @ Zenpundit.com.

Resilience

2010-10-30T18:22:10Z

A term utilized to describe the ability of a system or organization capable of adapting to, and surviving, events and/or attacks that would otherwise be catastrophic.

Generally speaking, resilience often describes the ability of those systems or groups to maintain a previous identity, organizational structure, and operational capability after such adaptation. However, given the nature of adaptation, this may or may not always be true, in which case identity, organizational structures, and operational capabilities, in part or in whole, may alter in response to catastrophic events but the system or group will still be considered resilient if the resulting system or organization shares a coherent narrative post-catastrophe to that held pre-catastrophe.

GG

2010-10-30T00:10:19Z

The acronym for Global Guerrillas. See: Global Guerrillas.

Global Guerrillas

2010-10-29T22:23:27Z

A term first coined by John Robb to describe the global emergence of autonomous warrior-groups capable of organizing and operating through horizontal means and eschewing exterior vertical controls. The existence of "black globalization" characterized by widespread black markets, "open-source platforms" allowing stigmergic learning, and the failure or inability of nation-states to halt or disrupt these environmental factors would allow the formation of autonomous groups capable of operating independently of nation-states. Indeed, John Robb has theorized that the emergence of these groups on a global scale will ultimately destroy globalization as we know it. Global Guerrillas have been described as not only able to operate outside the nation-state systems normal to our understanding of globalization but also as primarily targeting those nation-state systems and globalization operationally. In other words, the horizontal operations and loose interaction of diverse Global Guerrilla warrior-groups would ultimately supplant the nation-state/globalization system.

John Robb has variously referred to Global Guerrilla warfare as being a highly developed 4GW, as emergent 5GW, and as existing outside those labels ("Whether you call these developments 4GW on steroids or the start of a 5th generation, it just doesn't matter."¹) His frequent references to William Lind in considering these labels, and in particular his specific citation at the link to the quote given above, places his considerations within the framework of the Generations of Modern Warfare Theory (GMW) rather than in the framework of Gradient Warfare Theory (xGW). However, some xGW theorists have sought to find a place for Global Guerrillas in xGW theory, particularly in 5GW.² Some xGW theorists have rejected the theory of Global Guerrillas altogether,³ or else have placed Global Guerrillas in the third gradient of warfare, 3GW.⁴

¹ THE CHANGING FACE OF WAR: Into the 5th Generation (5GW) @ GlobalGuerrillas.com

² 'Global Guerrillas' as 5GW Warriors @ Dreaming5GW.com

³ Coherent Gibberish @ tdaxp.com

⁴ Am I Understanding the Gist of the Global Guerilla Concept? @ Purpleslog.wordpress.com

See: GMW, xGW, Systempunkt

Systempunkt

2010-10-28T23:26:48Z

The point in a system (either an infrastructure or a market), where a swarm of insults, disruptions and attacks will cascade and collapse the system, resulting in financial loss, supply shortages, or destabilization. (Wiktionary)

Within his theory of Global Guerrillas, John Robb has often made use of the term systempunkt when describing how non-state actors might attack, disrupt, and destroy states -- perhaps, globalization.

Further reading: "The Systempunkt" @ Global Guerrillas.

Seam States

2010-10-28T22:21:33Z

A term used by Thomas P. M. Barnett to describe states that act as buffer zones, or bridge zones, between the Gap and the Core:

The countries that ring the Gap--such as Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia. Some are already members of the Core, and most others are serious candidates for joining the Core. These states are important with regard to international security, because they provide terrorists geographic access to the Core. (Thomas P. M. Barnett's Globogization)

See: Gap, Core

Core

2010-10-28T22:17:08Z

A term used by Thomas P. M. Barnett to describe those areas of the world most connected to globalization's rule-sets:

Those parts of the world that are actively integrating their national economies into a global economy and that adhere to globalization’s emerging security rule set. The Functioning Core at present consists of North America, Europe both “old” and “new,” Russia, Japan and South Korea, China (although the interior far less so), India (in a pockmarked sense), Australia and New Zealand, South Africa, and the ABCs of South America (Argentina, Brazil, and Chile). (Thomas P. M. Barnett's Globogization.)

See: Gap, Seam States

Gap

2010-10-28T22:11:30Z

A term used by Thomas P. M. Barnett to describe areas of the world that remain largely disconnected from the dominant rule-sets of globalization:

Regions of the world that are largely disconnected from the global economy and the rule sets that define its stability. Today, the Non-Integrated Gap is made up of the Caribbean Rim, Andean South America, virtually all of Africa, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, and most of the Southeast Asian littoral. These regions constitute globalization’s “ozone hole,” where connectivity remains thin or absent in far too many cases. (Thomas P. M. Barnett's Globogization)

See: Core, Seam States

COIN

2010-10-27T22:35:51Z

The acronym for counter-insurgency:

Counter-insurgency (COIN is a popular acronym) is a military term for the armed conflict against an insurgency by forces aligned with the recognized government of the territory in which the conflict takes place. In the main, the insurgents seek to destroy or erase the political authority of the defending authorities in a population they seek to control, and the counter-insurgent forces seek to protect that authority and reduce or eliminate the supplanting authority of the insurgents. (Wikipedia)

COIN may take the general meaning cited above to describe any counter-insurgency operation, or in common usage the term may describe a particular counter-insurgency doctrine. Due to the latter, not everyone may agree upon the requirements, methods, or even all goals of any given COIN doctrine or whether it is, effectively, real counter-insurgency.

Within xGW theory, and particularly in discussions of 5GW, the idea of preemptive counter-insurgency has been used to describe operations intended to prevent insurgencies from forming. In this case, COIN would not describe "the armed conflict against an insurgency" because no insurgency yet exists, or at least no organized insurgency exists.