“Q – are you saying there will be no 6GW?”

I don't want to be a “Lind” [1] and say that the latest generation is the last, but as every generation is less kinetic than the one before it, it's hard to see where it's going if it doesn't just blend into chatter…

“Q – what is the difference between 5GW and a good ol' fashioned conspiracy?”

The same difference exists between rogue software projects and conspiracy theories [2 - see section III].

A 5GW is a conspirac that ceases being required once the product is released. The creation by the Truman clique of the Military-Industrial-Leviathan-Complex and the Iron Triangle at the beginning of the Cold War is such an example. [3] A non-5GW conspiracy theory would be the supposed creation by the Truman clique of Majestic 12 [4]. In the 5GW, no further secrecy is required. In the non-5GW conspiracy theory, further secrecy is essential.

[1] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2007/07/william_lind_on_5gw.php
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/07/20/dreaming-5th-generation-war.html
[3] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/07/describing-the-military-industrial-sysadmin-complex-how-we-w.html
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_12

Q – are you saying there will be no 6GW?

Q – what is the difference between 5GW and a good ol' fashioned conspiracy?

http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/10/observing_the_maturing_world.php

I'm still digesting Dan's reformulation of the ever-current or perhaps repeat-cycling of the Generational framework… Generally, while I view the xGW model to be a cognitive tool more than anything else (for understanding warfare), and while I believe that many aspects of each generation have appeared throughout human history, I also believe that certain configurations gain ascendancy for specific time frames, and that much of the modern era has added elements not present in the prior eras which lead to warfare that can be understood in a fairly linear model of generational development.

If the xGW model is to be a cognitive tool, then I see no problem with viewing the generations as a linear progression rather than an all-in-one always around sort of fashion.

“al Qaeda may have began as very simplified 4GW but is unlikely to become 3GW or 2GW but may well morph into 5GW”

At the Boyd conference [1], Lind (I believe) said that al Qaeda was now operating as a 3GW organization. This means that their ability to operate in the higher generation had been degraded and they were now relying on infiltration tactics.

“But here's the rub: globalization may be evening things out, so that these disparate groups do not follow their own xGW development in relative isolation. In the past, great turmoil could “shake up” any progressions of xGW, and much knowledge could be lost; e.g., something like a plague, genocide, or even the Middle Ages. Nowadays, with globalization and, especially, the storage of data and information as well as its transmission, these “rule-set resets” are not as likely to occur.”

Agreed. I bet the generations of war are somewhat similar to the stick-making technologies chimpanzees have. Probably all technologies now used by chimpanzees were invented and lost many times in the past.

PS: Blogspirit must be suspicious of you! [2] I was able to post the four-link comment to Adrian just fine, but one- or two- link reply to you causes all sorts of problems!

[1] http://www.d-n-i.net/boyd/2007_conference/report.htm
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/07/20/open-source-conspiracy.html#c1668030

To understand my p.o.v., it might be helpful to think of “the generations” not in terms of the whole system but in terms of specific groups of actors; e.g., of societies.

Generally, when discussions of xGW become heated between those who believe the model is infallible and those who believe it's a myth or a bunch of crap, this is because the xGW framework is being thought of as a paradigmatic entity or Over-Reality that either must not exist or exists but must develop only toward the future without being able to “go back in time” or regress. (Arrow pointing forward.)

Since xGW is though of in terms of an Over-Reality, for it to exist and be true, all societies and persons must fit within that dynamic, regardless of any distinguishing characteristics that would make them different. This style of thinking puts an undue burden on the framework and may in fact be related to the social darwinist theory of the development of cultures and societies.

Rather, let's see what happens when we consider the xGW framework in terms of individual societies or groups of actors. The “generations” may still proceed in a linear fashion within such realms (of people); so, for example, al Qaeda may have began as very simplified 4GW but is unlikely to become 3GW or 2GW but may well morph into 5GW. And it may be possible to think of a larger grouping, like “Western Society”, in a similar fashion…?

But here's the rub: globalization may be evening things out, so that these disparate groups do not follow their own xGW development in relative isolation. In the past, great turmoil could “shake up” any progressions of xGW, and much knowledge could be lost; e.g., something like a plague, genocide, or even the Middle Ages. Nowadays, with globalization and, especially, the storage of data and information as well as its transmission, these “rule-set resets” are not as likely to occur.

I, myself, have never been completely happy with the term 'Generation' applied to the model because I think it assumes a linear time progression. In essence, I see XGW in terms of the underlying doctrine, just as I see technology in terms of its utility as a tool. I do think the progression is linear in the sense that each generation is a progression in doctrine that is designed to defeat the previous generation and XGW is a congitive tool to express that. The term 'Generation' got hung on it and we are largely stuck with it.

Will there be a 6GW? Yes, but only if it is a new doctrine different from preceeding doctrines that is designed to defeat opponents using 5GW.

What is the difference between 5GW and good 'ol fashioned conspiracy? Well, you are going to have to explain exactly what you mean by conspiracy (two or more people working together secretly for personal gain, or in the sense of conspiracy theory were two events that are seemingly unrelated actually are). I see 5GW as an underlying campaign where the affect is not immediately obvious because the effects on the surface seem to be something else. It is really more complicated than that but I hope that gives you the sense on my thinking.

The idea of degrading a foe to force that foe into operating at a lower G must be related to the idea of forcing a warfare rule-set reset similar to the examples I gave before. This degradation may only be temporary, however, and would only lead to the target's ultimate destruction or dissolution if the target does not begin moving “forward” again.

This is, however, the kind of thinking that a 5GW organization might follow if they are looking to fund their campaigns, as well as a lesson why a (non-shadow)government would probably be very bad at some aspects of 5GW or at the least will have to go about them in different ways.