How is Full Spectrum 4GW different from 4GW?

Mike,

Fouro sounds right, and I think this ties into a materialist approach similar to Barnett's. Intellectual conversion is exceedingly difficult. Getting people to do what you want them to do while minimizing your role seems like a better approach…

Since Full Spectrum 4GW (I am going with this name for now) is proving to be successful, folks will look to ways (5GW) to combat it.

Some of the ideas might seem nutty at first, but there is an army of super empowered thinkers and bloggers tossing out and evolving ideas. Something will grow.

Fouro is fond of saying that there are only two things that bring about radical changes in mindsets and actions: Moonshots and Tsunamis. The real challenge is changing societies' opinions is that you can't change a society's opinion. You can't even change one person's opinion besides your own. What we CAN do is influence people in ways that help them change their mind. Boyd pointed the way with PISSR, but it still comes down to individuals influencing other individuals on a massive scale. You can't treat members of a society as fungible units; each has his or her own Lattice of Orientation Models and each of these lattices responds uniquely to stimuli/observations. Oh, and we can't core dump them to help others help us to change those lattices. Changing a society's collective opinion is doable, but not nearly as straightforward as most leaders would like to believe.

I am using “Full Spectrum Warfare or Conflict” as description of 4GW as opposed to a more narrow description of just “advanced/evolved guerilla warfare”.

I have been meaning to write a post for some time, but I am a bit sidetracked at the moment.

Purpleslog

Gotcha, but I would be careful of terminololgical inflation. 4GW is a neat concept, as outlined by Lind and Hammes. Both separate it from just well-performed guerrilla warfare. So I don't think “Full Spectrum 4GW” is a needed term, unless you are seperating it from a limited spectrum 4GW.