Results tagged “Mark Safranski”

Überblogger ZenPundit has summarized a ten-part series by Fabius Maximus from Defense and the National Interest.  Though only posted about two hours ago, ZenPundit's post has already elicited feedback from FM, as well as myself and D5GW moderator Curtis Gale Weeks.

ZenPundit has underscored a crucial factor in the evolution of the "xGW" model: how does one discriminate between 4GW (culture-based asymmetrical warfare focused on the "rage of the people") and 5GW (perception-based warfare focused on the context of conflict)?

Recent posts here at D5GW (in particular ARHerring's "Left of Boom/Right of Boom" analysis of kinetics in xGW, and Curtis's "X vs. X" follow-up) describe interrelationship of the various "generations" -- key to any theoretical framework.

I'd like to add another element to the foundation: the Clausewitzian "Trinity" (developed in Book II of Karl von Clausewitz's magnum opus, On War).  Clausewitz, in developing his famous assertion that "war is a continuation of politics by other means," describes three core elements of any campaign:

• Rationality (of the state)
• Probability (in military command)
• Rage (of the population)

Much of the "Cold War" ethos of warfighting was vested in the first premise: the rationality of the state (q.v., "Mutually Assured Destruction" doctrine in nuclear warfare).  Similarly, insurgencies like the U.S. faced in Vietnam forty years ago -- and in Iraq today -- are driven by the third premise: the rage of the people.

Could 5th Generation Warfare (where perception and context are key) be described as a fusion of popular rage with political rationality, where the very idea of "conflict" is altered in order to create conditions favorable to the 5th Generation warrior?  Such a feat would logically factor the second premise (the probabilistic calculus of the military commander) out of the equation -- or at least reduce its relevance in the larger battle of ideas.

"Recommended Reading" -- Mark Safranski, ZenPundit


"9/11: The Mouse that Roared" -- Nonpartisan, Progressive Historians


Interesting back-and-forth at ZenPundit.  Mark linked the article on Progressive Historians in his weekly highlight, spurring a negative comment from D5GW contributor Dan tdaxp which in turn spurred a little horizontal speculation from yours truly.

You can read the article written by Nonpartisan.  Essentially, through a sensationalizing metaphor and purple writing, Nonpartisan has declared that 1) those in America most terrified of terrorists following 9/11 are the "elephant" petrified by the "mouse", and 2)  9/11 was really "no more than a bee sting against America by any metric you can imagine" which nonetheless has had a profound effect not only on American psyches but also on America's entire future:

The metaphor of the mouse and the elephant is particularly apt here, for of course a mouse cannot really strike in any significant fashion at an elephant, yet the elephant is so irrationally afraid of the mouse that it becomes completely paralyzed by the very sight of him -- the powerful beast takes on the ultimate animistic visage of a coward.

Long after we are all dead, historians will look back at this sorry state of affairs and ask, why?  Why did America abandon its promise at the very moment it had the economic and political power to really accomplish something great in the history of the world?  Why did the Americans not simply ignore the terroristic mouse, or use the international goodwill 9/11 gave them to promote a world order of lasting mutual peace?  And they will turn sadly away from this historical epoch, knowing that the only answer to their query is that too many Americans were, incredibly, afraid of the mouse; too many, like Orson Scott Card and Zell Miller, were even more afraid of the mouse than of the real threats America faced.  They traded their unique opportunity in exchange for petty vengeance because only that vengeance could ease their fitful, irrational nightmares.

[Nonpartisan, "9/11: The Mouse that Roared"]

The essay, which also compared the Top Ten Causes of Death, 2001, as computed by the CDC, with the death total from the 9/11 attacks, prompted Dan tdaxp to comment at ZenPundit,

The underlying claim -- that deaths from thinking- and non-thinking- opponents are comparable for the purpose of analysis -- has been dealt with elsewhere. If that was the entirety of the post, P.H. would have presented us with a boring repetition of claims many years old.

[Dan tdaxp]

To which, Nonpartisan replied with this comment:

Dan, the underlying claim of my post is that we lost the "War on Terror" by allowing it to divert us from our previous world goals; I use the actuarial data only as a segue into that broader point.

[Nonpartisan]

My first thoughts when reading the essay at Progressive Historians -- besides thoughts about Orson Scott Card, which I won't address here -- were bi-fold:

First, I remembered a similar comparison I once made on my blog Phatic Communion.  In "Deaths by Human", I compared all deaths caused by foreign terrorists globally to deaths caused by homicide in America for the year 2003 (Americans killing Americans.)  Essentially, murders in America were about 7 times the number of deaths caused by terrorists in that year.

I have frequently thought that the 9/11 murders, the falling towers, etc., though extremely horrible were a kind of "bee sting":  America is very large, very powerful, quite capable of coming out of such an attack scenario at the same relative strength as before the attack.

The second thing:  a comment by Alan Sullivan to a different post on Phatic Communion, in which he suggested that 9/11 fit the bill as far as 5GW theory goes.  I had replied to his comment that, yes, rather than "sap the will" of so many Americans who never realized we were already fighting radical Islamist terrorists (4GW), 9/11 initiated so many counter-moves by the U.S. as America began to realize a larger, previously unknown narrative existed.  Nonpartisan's thesis seems to be that our psycho-emotional response to 9/11, as expressed through action (OODA), has hurt America far more than the actual 9/11 attacks hurt America in themselves.

With these two thoughts in mind, a third entered my thinking:  Dan tdaxp's thoughts concerning "thinking- and non-thinking-opponents".   I have had in the back of my mind the possibility that al-Qaeda, at least at bin-Laden's level, might have 5GW aspirations; but I have also thought that whatever aspirations he and his closest advisors may have, al-Qaeda is very unlikely to have the sort of resources, connectivity, and sophistication to fight in a 5GW style (at least as of 9/11).  Nonetheless, one can make an argument, I think, that 9/11 has had 5GWish repercussions: not only the drain on resources, morale, and military readiness caused by the war in Iraq, but also the political fracturing that has only been exacerbated in America since the invasion of Iraq -- to a boiling point, actually.  In fact, bin Laden's latest meandering video may be an attempt to inject even more noise into the political fracturing -- or indeed the national narrative -- of America.

But I doubt that al-Qaeda had as much foresight as 20/20 hindsight would ascribe to them.  Was 9/11 a 5GW attack?  Or does it even matter if it was/not?

Dan's injection of the "thinking- and non-thinking-opponents" meme, in combination with these thoughts, inspired me to comment on ZenPundit with a question:

Question, though, since Dan brought up the "thinking- and non-thinking" meme: Is it possible for a 5GW effect to occur by accident?

Ha, imagine: that's the ultimate in "formlessness"!

But I mean, basically, that al-Qaeda may have intended a kind of 4GW sabre-rattling and 4GW attack but "accidentally" achieved more of a 5GW jujitsu kind of attack.

Or perhaps in other words, a different way of thinking about it:  Is this how 5GW will be "discovered" and then refined and ultimately utilized by some actors on the world stage?

From TPMB

Thomas Barnett responded to my post "On the Barnettian 5GW" with "Nice post by Curtis on 5GW."

Shane's right in his comment: I do agree with the vast majority of the post, to include its criticism that my vision to date has relied a lot on stock characters (nations, militaries, corporations).

The reason why I don't just elucidate the super-empowered masses is two-fold:

[TPMB]

Very thrilling to have a response like that, although I must admit I did not expect it.  I didn't expect any direct response, mostly because I know Tom is a very busy man and I'm just a blogger on the sidelines trying to make sense of things -- in my own peculiar way.  So it's also thrilling to have my "take" on Tom's vision validated.  I mean, I made some metaphorical, logical, and horizontal leaps in that post.

Tom's reason behind his lack of elucidation is two-fold.  You can go read it, if you like.  I left this response:

After writing that post, I began to realize my own paradox: Given the stress made at D5GW on secrecy in 5GW operations, my criticism that you haven't outlined the street-level 5GW approach seems a little silly. Of course you haven't. I've been contemplating the ways that much of that outline could be incorporated into your Book III -- even before your response here. In any case, I also realize that your primary audience has thus far matched your prior approach (as well as matching your experience) and that many seeds must be planted for any 5GW endeavor before the flowers can bloom. Anything I've written on the topic, even criticisms on your Core/Gap strategy, has been greatly informed by your work. If I'm co-opted, I would expect my criticisms to be part and parcel of your overall game plan!

BTW, I very much like "the tale of 5GW can only be told in mosaic." I'll probably have to steal that metaphor.

I'm also looking forward to your collaboration with Steve, even if I have to work my way there through #3.

[CGW]

When I mentioned in comments under the original post on D5GW that Tom often speaks in parables, I was not far off in my analysis, I see.  His experience, his connections, his audience, have gone to shape his message thus far; and the superempowered individuals are hidden behind the parabolic figures, "nations, militaries, corporations."  I knew that when I wrote that post.  As part of my own peculiar on-going effort here at D5GW, the analysis of those parables requires elucidation -- but as PurpleSlog once commented, Tom's effort to sell his vision may be 5GW even if the particulars he has thus far outlined are pre-5GW operations when considered in isolation.  That's something to keep in mind.  To the degree that others-who-are-not-Tom take his ideas and run with them, altering them, elucidating them, we might wonder if they are in fact co-opted without knowing they are.

From the ZenPundit

Mark Safranski highlighted my post and Tom's post with "Globalization's Superempowered Societies."

I don't think Curtis' use of " relative equalization of individual empowerment" is actually as oxymoronic as it seems. This is an astute normative economic observation on Week's part. Instead, it illustrates the aggregate effect of Schumpeter's creative destruction rippling across the globe as the spread of economic connectivity and information technology proceeds apace. The spread, of say, cell phone-based wifi internet access to states with sketchy (at best) landline telephone service, is a quantum leap forward for equalization of empowerment on the macro- scale even as certain small networks or individuals of those states on the micro- scale, possess the ability to leverage still greater levels of empowerment to become "more equal than others".

This seeming dichotomy are flip sides of the same coin in any true market action and is always ongoing to some degree, provided the market is permitted to function. Unless the comparative advantage is artificially locked in by force ( this is what tyrants of disconnectivity, like Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il, do - force everyone else to remain still in order to retain their own local "super empowerment"), any individual or entity's "super empowerment" is apt to be a fleeting condition unless constantly maintained by adaptive improvements.

[MS]

If my grasp on complex economics were as good as Mark implied in the first paragraph, I'd have an easier time addressing my uneasiness with his analysis.  On the surface, I understand this completely and somewhat agree; but I'm leery of the subject of 'free markets,' given the fact that even capitalism within democratic societies is certainly not 'free.'  It can't be free, or it wouldn't be capitalism.  For instance, the truly superempowered within a capitalistic society will by definition be the best at adapting to maintain that superempowerment.  Am I wrong?  Then again, the sort of inheritance system we have in America may enable an American bin Laden to emerge one day:  How much time should we give to "the system" to correct such an emergence, given the sort of destruction such an individual could wreak before we realize the nefarious turn?

I suppose I could rephrase those questions and ask:  What keeps the greatly empowered and, especially, the superempowered from tweaking the system in order to "lock in" their relative wealth/power?

And yet, to the degree that those superempowered rely on "the masses" for their power and give "bread and circuses" to the masses, the masses may remain content with the disparity. Something besides the "anti-lock-in" is at work.

Mark makes an excellent point in reference to Tom's "accent on [SEI's] positively remaking the world" --

Numerically speaking, most highly intelligent, energetic, creative and task persistent individuals who function as change agents are overwhelmingly positive actors.

[MS]

-- while cautioning us not to grow complacent given that fact. "Negative super empowered individuals" may emerge.  I particularly like Mark's addition of a potential third ingredient for building systemic resilience capable of surviving and even thriving despite the perturbations a superempowered actor might cause:

Steve's Development-in-a Box paradigm at Enterra is one effort to begin comprehensively addressing these deficits. Tom's Sys Admin is another. Building new, highly decentralized, "Wikinomic" mass-collaborative platforms from scratch, may be yet a third.

[MS]

Where's John Robb?

Ah, there he is.  Should've expected that.  Not exactly a response to my post, but...

Here's the latest entry on his personal blog, short and sweet:

Brave New Peace?

Working on the ideas for a second book (in the proposal stage) on superempowered individuals and their ability change things for the better. It picks up on the last section of BNW on rethinking security and runs with it.

[JR]

It also runs with Mark's and Tom's posts, right on cue.

My initial reaction was the above; then, I thought, Hmmmm...Maybe someone's 5GW is coming together.

And then I thought something even better:  We may one day in the not-too-distant future find Tom, John, and Mark operating in close harmony (with the occasional skeptical remark from CGW lobbed over the fence.)  Essentially, my post exploring the Barnettian 5GW, though it carried the familiar criticism of Robb's GG theory, was critical of Barnett's theory precisely where Robb takes up; that is, at the street level, far below the parabolic national, military, and corporate level.

We will see.

Short on time today and tomorrow.  Too bad, because 5GW discussion has been ratcheted up in our little neighborhood on the AllSpace.  Here are some links and a few remarks; but I will definitely be returning to these shortly, when I have the time to properly address them!

Thomas Barnett has posted his Own Personal 5GW Dream, in which he heavily references Dreaming 5GW!  So much is given in this build-it-as-you-go post, I feel almost ashamed offering only minor observations while I wait for the time (a day or two) I need to really dig into the post.  But that would be point #1:

1. So much is given in this build-it-as-you-go post.  Not very secret, is it?  Reading the post, I felt those intransigent but highly active fingertip feelings squirming within me.  This post is like Barnett throwing down the gauntlet, and it might have been too early.  The dream he gives will terrify enough people, if it were given in Congress (just imagine!  But I don't know his readership; it might already be!), the opposition to his dream would be mobilized.  (As it has been; but that's another blogger, whose recent activity I'll address in a moment.)
2. I do like Barnett's thinking, however, and he's far more right than wrong (something I've been saying a lot lately, about not only Barnett.)  The biggest problem with his dream may be seen in how various commenters around the web are responding to it:  Ok, so America assumes a false 'failing' in order to motivate China to become more active; that sounds 5GW, but Barnett's a little too blasé about this.  In order for America to emerge "fat, rich, and safe for the long haul," a country named 'America' needs to still exist by the end of things.  We were fortunate that we had time to readjust to our disillusionment after Vietnam; I doubt we have that luxury now.  So when he says,

   all this talk of winning-while-appearing-to-lose simply won't wash. You simply can't manipulate people and countries like that.

   I wish he would stop thinking about other countries for a bit and think about the American psyche.  This is not to say that it cannot be done, but only that it would need to be managed a little better than that.  America must be occupied in feeling quite successful, even as other nations -- China, in particular -- gain motivation from America's seeming failure in areas like the Middle East.  (Heh, side-thought that's been bouncing around in my head:  If we were to annex Mexico, or at least some Mexican states, the introspection required to turn eyes away from 'failure' in the Middle East, as well as a reinvigoration and a feeling of American worth -- i.e., expansion -- could both be achieved.  Hmmm.)

Speaking of naturally motivating opposition... This talk of 5GW has motivated John Robb to rechristen his Global Guerrillas as 5GWarriors: "THE CHANGING FACE OF WAR: Into the 5th Generation (5GW)".  He let slip the 'GG as 5GW' meme in the post before that post, which I addressed here in my last D5GW entry.  His method is disingenuous, to say the least, since he has previously:

1. Argued that GG is 4GW; because 'Lind said so'.
2. Argued that it's just too, too early to call 5GW.  (And this less than a week ago!)  Even worse, he usually says such things while saying, in effect, I agree with Lind: too early to call 'er!
3. And now, he pulls a Lind, steals a title, and his destruction-oriented mythical creatures have become 5GW Warriors -- because, I think, the idea of 5GW must be coopted since much 5GW discussion concerns building order, and Robb sees that such a framework will shut his forthcoming book out.  Any theory of perpetual, unstoppable chaos & violence must necessary disregard any notion of emergent order.

On that second point and link:  If you follow the comments, you can see how clearly Robb has been motivated to do #3.  After a consideration of 'prematurity', given by Mark Safranski of ZenPundit, Robb comments,

Zen, then we are likely seeing it in some of the evolutionary behavior I have documented on GGs.

You see the wheels turning, there.

But, as I've said I've said a lot lately, Robb may be more right than wrong, at least on some particulars; and I can see how his wheels have been greased.  I've addressed the GG debate before -- "Lind, Robb, Dan, PurpleSlog, CGW" -- and come now to the same conclusions.  Robb appears to have a fairly good grasp on a phenomenon we may face in the future, but he is describing an environment more than a generation of warfare or any coherent operational dynamic (i.e., if you take the GG in toto; however, some methods of GG are clear and coherent, if taken piecemeal.)  He may not be seeing the entire dynamic; but clearly seeing some aspects of it, he's taking those aspects and drawing logical conclusions.

Robb actually responds directly to Barnett's dream -- by calling it "Totally unreal" -- and Barnett has responded with a field of flowers and weeds.  I wrote a comment on Barnett's response, which has not posted yet (it's in moderation; for some reason, my Typekey login did not click from the preview page), which I'll repost here.  After another commenter questions Barnett's statement, that he "[doesn't] see nonstate actors, nor their networks, becoming stronger over time," I wrote this:

I don't know what Barnett sees, but perhaps 'stronger' for these specific non-state actors is relative to the forces of stability. In GG and similar theories, there appears to be an assumption that approx. 99.9% of the world population (or more!) will just sit back and let the forces of chaos reign, that even the kind of devastation possible by a superempowered individual will outweigh any kind of potential response to such devastation. Chaos is assumed to emerge, but order is not.

The biggest problem with such a theory (of many) is this assumption of passivity for the vast majority of the human population. Whereas, every single bit of technology, from the low-tech to the futuristic high-tech, will also be available to those 99.9%. Methods of social organization (e.g., open source) will also be available to those 99.9%. In fact, many of those 99.9% will also be 'superempowered,' just like Robb's mythical GG's. So a better vision of the future would take these factors into account: From a Wild West perspective, the chaos will not only be about 'bestial strangers' (demons) appearing from nowhere to destroy all the hard-built homesteads, leading to perpetual wilderness, but also about the efforts of those building their livelihood amidst the chaos.

And that metaphor, btw, makes no difference whether you take a nativist or a homesteader p.o.v., since either group worked hard to establish their own particular sense of order. Despite all the chaos that came from conflict, an order emerged. So when Robb will argue on the one hand that these demons popping up all over the place will have no common motivation but destruction, and on the other hand that they will somehow manage to work together in a stable 'bazaar of violence' funded by a stable 'black globalization' and developing into 'virtual states' -- first they are disconnected 4GWarriors he says, then when 5GW discussion kicks in, his GG are somehow suddenly 5GWarriors rather than 4GW -- I think he is only trying to work around the fact that even these pseudo-demons will have tendencies toward order: i.e., establishing their own sort of order. They are not endless chaos generators.

Barnett's far too easy on John Robb. GG, in order for it to actually become a reality, has been twisted into a self-sustaining prophesy powered by selective but obstinate ignorance -- i.e., by ignoring large realities. If you believe real demons exist, and moreover that they are entirely unstoppable because no real angels exist, you'll buy into the prophecy being given by Robb.

On the other hand: and this is important: as I've argued before, Robb's outlining a phenomenon rather than a generation of warfare or any type of coherent operational methodology. When I read GG, I pay close attention to what Robb is saying, because he is in large part describing a significant aspect of the environment that will face us (who are the 99.9% he generally disregards.) There is of course the possibility, I think, that some one GG faction or handful of superempowered individuals will succeed in a major strike at order, fueled by destructive high technology, causing everything to collapse globally; a particularly vicious virus might do it. So there is that to keep in mind. Organizations like Lifeboat (and many others) are keeping that in mind, however.

---------------

More will come, when I have more time!

---

UPDATE: Corrected link to John Robb's CHANGING FACE OF WAR post.

Also, TDAXP takes a look at GG with "5GW is Closed Source (and Global Guerillas Theory is Incoherent)"

Lots of interesting commentary on 5GW over the last day.  It is this type of chatter, more than anything, that led me to question Dan's assessment that "The American System of Government is as brilliant at defending itself from 5GWs as from 4GWs." -- as well as the idealized version of Thomas Barnett's paradigm-shifting strategies for preempting opposition within the Gap, questioned in yesterday's post.  How much 'democratization' of the OODA 'observe' will be allowed by grand strategists and grand paradigm builders?  As social systems move away from concrete totalitarian structures and the decision-making process becomes more democratized, more complex, the field for 5GW ripens; the board becomes set by becoming perpetually unsettled.  The OODA is not merely the O; no, it involves other levels of cognition and reasoning, reasoning is always from a limited observational capability which removes it from the strict lines of cause & effect, and although the World may be the same for everyone, individual assessments of it will differ.  Complexity introduces perplexity.

Thomas Barnett considered this in another recent post, "Fifth Generation (political) warfare," in which he considered the plight of Conrad Burns from Montana:

Constant observation of the foe. Unrelenting surveillance. Every gaffe exposed and then run ad nauseum on the web. His ability to orient himself as desired in the race is disrupted.

Conrad Burns, the incumbent, is trailed everywhere on the campaign by a young operative for the Dems who videotapes him non-stop every chance he gets, waiting for the screw-up.

Why does this sort of preemption of the OODA work?  Because one set of possible observations -- Conrad Burns' legislative history, his political epistemology in action; and his family interactions, etc. -- is usurped by the constant introduction of new data sliced quite separate from that history.  I've discussed this sort of thing before, in my posts on the Revised OODA; in a way, it is a 3GW cognition attack on the undecided voters, who, being offered a constant stream of new data, are being forced to make snap judgments impulsively.  Or else, for the Democratic party faithful, it is the 4GW reinforcement of an old assessment of Burns, leading to yet more habitual assessments.  (And actually, what starts as a 3GWish attack on orientation may over time become a 4GW reinforcement of assessments, if the data is sliced along the same parameters regularly enough.)

Ad agencies do it, and the process is none too new for political parties.  Ministers and weblog pundits do it as well.  (Can anyone say, "Ms. Malkin"?)  It is so old, we have the example of Cato: "Delenda est Carthago!"

One might attempt the same in a totalitarian system; but the populace, lacking power to do much to change the status quo, are not as apt to act on their assessments, and the head of the totalitarian state is not as apt to follow whatever popular assessment is being whispered on the streets.  In a democracy, things work differently.

Notice how Mark Safranski picks up on the importance of surveillance for a state wishing to defend itself from 5GW:

The state in turn, is vulnerable to a proliferation of such superempowered individuals and will have to defend itself with a combination of surveillance and active cultivation of primary loyalties ( reducing the motivation for such individuals to act out in antisocial ways).

This may actually be true of any state, if we are to think of state-citizen interactions in terms of social contracts.  In any case, the totalitarian state certainly wishes to defend itself from 'superempowered individuals' -- i.e., from individuals empowered by rights to privacy, the right to vote and demonstrate and meet, the right to carry arms, and so forth.  So this too is nothing new.  The 5GW trick has been to give the populace the belief that it is the state, although Mark appears to separate the two in offering his prescription for 'the state's' consideration.  (In a perhaps not-too-well considered post on Christianity and 5GW, I once suggested that the founders of America had pulled off a 5GW coup.  I also suggested that 'dispensational premillennialism' was introduced into Christianity in order to combat the socialist tendencies of amillenialist Christianity:  Give people the power to assess the level of their own personal salvation, the power to achieve it on their own while disregarding the spiritual welfare of others, and you have 'superempowered' people who will believe they act entirely of their own free will, and that they may act powerfully.  I.e., you set the 5GW chessboard.)

These things are why I say that Thomas Barnett's system for change in the Gap and the world is more likely to lead to 5GW opposition than squelch it.  John Robb's more right than wrong when he contemplates perpetual chaos for the future, which he usually does.  However, as I contemplated yesterday, some shadow lies over the exact shape that the future will take, and this constant lack of settling -- this chaos -- may not be perpetual violence.  I.e., Barnett would introduce the sort of political chaos he has described for America into the Gap: remove totalitarianism and insert 'democratized' OODA loops, and you therefore remove totalitarian methods (concerted violence) while introducing democratic conflict (mass and constant chatter.)  If 3GW and 4GW always threaten world destruction, particularly as technology advances, then even 5GWarriors may be more inclined to find non-violent methods for domination.

Shloky has in fact postulated post-5GW conflict that results from the 'technological singularity' predicted by Kurzweil et al.  My first impression is that all the bets of current 5GW theory are off once such a major change occurs; this includes the advent of advanced nanotechnology.  I.e., if I'm alive when these things occur, I'm quite certain I'll revise my assessment of the fifth generation of warfare.  However, until humans stop being humans, the process of observe - orient -decide - act will continue to shape human activity, and I expect 5GW to adapt & grow with these changes.


UPDATE: Speaking of democracy, it would appear (and has appeared for some time) that advocates of democracy work into their designs 5GW methods as a matter of course; check out "Developing a Strategy for Fifth Generation Warfare" on Democracy Project. (HT: ZenPundit.) I.e., using commercial advertising and focused messages to insert members of one's own party into key positions...is fundamental to the operation of democracy as currently practiced.

First, I would like to welcome visitors to Dreaming 5GW, a new cooperative blog focusing on various theories of fifth generation warfare.

Over the course of the last year and a half, I've been both, intrigued by various blogospheric discussions concerning 5GW and often inspired to address the subject myself on my blog Phatic Communion: inspired by bloggers Dan of tdaxp, Mark Safranski of ZenPundit, and Younghusband of Coming Anarchy.  Discussions of 5GW have ranged between these excellent blogs and have led to conversations on Phatic Communion as well, through which I have had the good fortune to engage in related discussion with others who have also discovered the subject -- in much the same way I did -- and found it fascinating.

Lately, however, I have felt the need to consolidate the conversations in whatever way I could.  Perhaps this was a result of seeing so many searches for "5GW" in my blog's stats which never developed beyond the quick hit on my weblog by strangers who may -- or may not? -- have found what they were looking for; but I think the desire to find a home for 5GW theory has come from my own wish to explore the topic in more detail without having to constantly travel the Blogospheric Highway piecing together the conversations.  (Or, indeed, without needing to search Phatic Communion for the 5GW-related posts and conversations every time I wanted to revisit the topic!)

At the same time, the conversations on 5GW which had inspired me...inspired me greatly because they approached the topic from angles I had not considered.

Trying to suss out what the next generation of warfare will be is like trying to predict exactly what some future language will be after who knows how many cultures, geopolitical and geologic events, and technological innovations have first occurred:  it will probably have some relation to modern English but is unlikely to be exactly like the English I am now using.  (Indeed, who knows how much of a typical conversation from the year 2340 would be intelligible to a 21st century American?)

Thus, I recognized the need to maintain the diversity represented by cross-blog conversations on the topic, and I decided that a similar approach would be valuable for Dreaming 5GW.  It is my hope that the different angles provided by the contributors to Dreaming 5GW -- each with his own eye training on the wide-ranging WWW, on the world, and indeed on what Thomas Barnett has recently called the 'AllSpace' -- that each individual contributor OODA, will provide a better composite angle on 5GW than I could possibly accomplish on my own.

---

"The sandwich generations-of-war strategy" -- Thomas P.M. Barnett

"5GW and Ruleset Automation" -- Dan, of tdaxp.

"A Strategic Dagwood" -- Mark Safranski, ZenPundit.

Speaking of Thomas Barnett... I had planned to take a day or two off after completing the designs and setup for Dreaming 5GW (a somewhat tedious affair) but from the blue comes an intriguing correlation with something I had only tangentially suggested previously:  That Thomas Barnett may actually be a 5GWarrior.

Humans have been organizing themselves into complex social networks simce they emerged from the stage of tiny hunter-gatherer bands. They did so "naturally" and unconsciously without understanding how this pattern mirrored that of other complex systems....

There are already attempts to understand networks in terms of terrorism and military strategy and these efforts to exploit this information in order to reap a comparative advantage will only proliferate, perhaps exponentially. In other words, as complex network theory meets cultural evolution, humans will attempt to consciously "steer" the evolutionary devlopment of social and, eventually, biologically engineered networks.

[Mark Safranski, ZenPundit, in "What happens when networks meet 'The Logic of Human Destiny' ?"]

All of these elements already exist. They are not the product of 'futurism,' of gazing into a crystal ball.

[William Lind,  "The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation"]

Lind has already pointed at an area that may have significant refinement in the future, whenever he has written of psychological warfare, the power of media, and attacking a society's culture.  But in 1989 he believed these things would be supplemental. Others since have focused on a limited use of these, since 4GWarriors in theory would influence societies in only a small handful of ways via media and culture warfare.  They have seen these things, because media has always been extraordinarily important to human societies, whether merely in the form of language, or of poetry, or of edicts, or of scientific texts, or of Theses nailed to Church doors, or of holy words and texts preserved for millennia.

[Phatic Communion, "Lind, Robb, Dan, PurpleSlog, CGW"]