Building a Table of Contents for “5GW: The Fifth Generation of War?”

5GW: The Fifth Generation of War? will be an edited volume of perspectives on “5GW,” one of the most controversial subjects in defense and security studies. 5GW: The Fifth Generation of War? will be published by Nimble Books, which is currently overseeing the release of the “Age of Obama” series of works associated with the inauguration of our 44th President. (Books in the “Age of Obama” series include A Reporter’s Journey with Clinton, McCain and Obama in The Making of the President, 2008, Obama Does Globalization, and Persuader in Chief: Global Opinion and Public Diplomacy in the Age of Obama. )

5GW: The Fifth Generation of War? will be on sale by June.

The provisional Table of Contents is as follows:

  • Aherring: Why do we need 5GW?
  • David Axe: 5GW in Africa
  • Adam Elkus: Killing 5GW in Order to Save It: Reinterpreting 5GW Theory
  • Joseph Fouche: Is 5GW the End of the Rainbow?
  • Brent Grace: Reshaping the Battlspace: Using 5GW to Combat Urban Gangs
  • Lexington Green: 5GW: A Value-Destroying Formulation of Contemporary and Future Problems
  • Samuel Liles: Cyber warfare to cyber terrain
  • Dan McIntosh: Transhumanist Politics and 5GW / How does 5GW differ from normal politics?
  • Stephen Pampinella: 5GW and Social Constructivism: Contemporary War as Identity Manipulation
  • Purpleslog: Patterns of 5GW
  • Seerov: Spatial Considerations of 5GW
  • Joe Sherrer: Generalizing Generational Warfare

Additional authors who have expressed interest in submitting chapters include:

  • Jay, of Soob,
  • Mark Safranski, of Zenpundit, and
  • Francis Younghusband, of Coming Anarchy

NImble Books has also published my monography, Revolutionary Strategies in Early Christianity, and the edited volume of the John Boyd Roundtable (which contains a forward by Thomas Barnett, of Great Powers fame).

22 thoughts on “Building a Table of Contents for “5GW: The Fifth Generation of War?””

  1. I think it would be rather helpful if there was a discussion on terminology prior to submission of the articles. The title of the book, for example, uses the ‘generation’ terminology of Lind, whereas XGW (where I’ll be writing from) uses the term ‘gradient’.

    Just for clarity and consistency sake.

  2. Looking good! I’m excited about this project.

    I wonder if we could enhance the long-term value of this as a reference work on a key subject by adding a bibliography and glossary. What do you think?

  3. I’m with Fred. The lack of a bib was one of the things I found a bit odd about Threats in the Age of Obama.

    Since Word will spit one out automatically anyway, I had planned to submit one with my chapter (with in doc cite done via foototes) one way or the other.

    I really liked the way Tom Barnett kept posting the books he was reading and eventually his whole bib while working on Great Powers –

    Dan,perhaps you should put out a call and then post working bibliographies?

  4. Fred,

    Information is sent – let’s hope for the best!

    Curtis would be an invaluable contributor!

    Purpleslog,

    It’s a popular idea, then! 🙂

  5. The Time Line [1] is back up.

    To say the least, it is extremely bare, especially for the last couple of years. It was a work in progress on which not much work progressed.

    Some of the earlier entries might be interesting. I believe some people are under the impression that Robb or Hammes “invented” 5GW.

    Well nvm on that, it’s taking on a life of its own now!

    [1] http://www.5gw.phaticcommunion.com/

  6. Fantastic!!!

    Did you want to turn it into a “chapter” in the volume?

    If not, I can edit a joint chapter, with all of the D5GW contributors as co-authors.

    Thanks Curtis!!!

  7. Not all the D5GW contributors contributed to the Time Line. In fact, I was the only one to work on it (with the exception of one solitary entry I think?).

    If you would like to convert it, feel free, since I doubt I’ll have the time to do so myself; if you would like to collaborate on the annotations or use something from the summaries I wrote, we can go halvsies on the credits for it.

    My greatest regret for the Time Line is that I stopped expanding it when the sequence reached D5GW-era posts. The reason? There would have been so many — each D5GW blog entry — and at the time it would have felt like redundancy besides requiring so much effort to recap all of them.

    Since the ending of my work on the Time Line, a great many more blogs and authors have contributed to the discussion of 5GW; 5GW theory has taken so many more routes; so that the Time Line as it currently stands (including as well the absence of D5GW-related entries) seems pathetically insufficient to the task of chronicling the discussion.

  8. Well, let’s think positive about updating the 5GW timeline. I see reason for optimism that it’s not an impossible task for a team (why don’t we use Google Docs?)

    Some subsequent posts are more important than others, and we need not be entirely subjective about it — you could do some Technorati or Google Blog Search queries to find the posts containing [5GW] and synonyms that have generated the most inbound links, and include every post over a numeric threshold. to be sure, there needs to be a subjective or analytic component to selecting the posts that have been most influential, those that have started new “branches” of the tree, those that have relied upon/reached into other disciplines, etc…

    Fred

  9. I could never get my login working on the Timeline, but I didn’t pursue it too hard.

    I had started on a history as part of the ill-fated wikipedia page. A timeline article could start that way.

    Doing it in goolge docs would be a good way for a glossary and “A Short History of 5GW Theorizing”

  10. Purpleslog, it would be very cool to create a chapter out of the ill-fated entry you wrote for Wikipedia, with an introduction briefly describing Wikipedia’s deletion of it.

    Then, because it would have a dead-tree source, we could add it to Wikipedia and see what happens!

  11. As an aside, my experience has been that whenever I add something to Wikipedia that I actually know about, an army of bot-like editors comes along and removes it because I have a conflict of interest. Their policies tend to favor second-hand information… so I strongly suggest we start off inside Google Docs or some other collaboration tool.

    But I agree it would be fun to put the chapter up on Wiki and see what happens!

  12. Purpleslog wrote a fantastic one — extremely clear, informative, and well cited. (I think I have a copy of it somewhere…)

    For citing “web-based research,” it was deleted and sent into oblivion.

    This is one advantage of what Nimble allows us to do. When something is on dead-tree — and even better, easily accessible in a place like Google Book Search — it becomes wiki-compatible, allowing it to enter the minds of even those who close themselves off to thinking that is not done in traditional mediums.

  13. As an aside, I prefer “write-protected” as a term of art over “dead tree.” For me, “the war is over” when I have fixed the book in its digital expression as a production-ready PDF. It can go anywhere after that (and often does!)

    Believe me, as soon as someone comes up with a flexible, lightweight, long-battery-life, 600 dpi, high-contrast screen with CMYK color, 8 x 10. wireless tablet, I will be all over it.

    Dan’s first book, Revolutionary Strategies in Early Christianity, is available on Google Book Search, and THREATS and the others in the AGE OF OBAMA series soon will be.

  14. Fred,

    I agree.

    An area I see this is academic journal publishing, where physical copies of the journals are valuabel to those who want to read the latest of what is going on at their leisure (without worrying about the consequences of dropping the reading device!), while PDF or online access is used to quickly find a relevent citation, or to quickly learn a lot about a very narrow topic.

    They are complimentary approaches… too bad Wikipedia (and the academic bias against including anything beginning with http in the references list) do not agree! 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *