The Wizard And The Invisible Hurricane
Sorry, but I think this is an effort looking for ghost puppet masters when there are none. In fact, this is indicative of what seems to be the critical flaw in the 5GWsite approach to 5GW.
5GW is what we label the emergent pattern formed by a distributed multitude of empowered individuals acting in concert by acting in their own self interest, without any collaboration.
You are seeking to make sense of complexity by having someone behind a layer of “secrecy”. Unless you are going to hunt down the invisible hand and label it a sentient being, there simply is not a Wizard in this Oz.
“5GW is what we label the emergent pattern formed by a distributed multitude of empowered individuals acting in concert by acting in their own self interest, without any collaboration.”
Wrong. You are trying to label “war” what simply emerges. This was the central problem in John Robb’s utilization of the term 5GW for his theory of Global Guerrillas, and it is the central problem in the paragraph above. You could as easily label the ricocheting atoms in our universe or in a puddle of water “a generation of warfare”; but it is not war or, if it is (very loosely speaking), it would not fit within the generational model of warfare, much less in any useful theory of warfare.
“Useful theory of warfare” : i.e., the actors have some understanding of what they are wanting to achieve, a theory of the conflict, and that understanding, however it plays out, has a direct correlation with the larger dynamic of the war. These individuals you propose, entirely self-interested and perhaps often unaware of each other, may indeed act in particular and quite different ways, thus causing the larger system to be shaped by what they do, but this is not warfare any more than a flock of seagulls or a collection of atoms or an infestation of roaches.
5GW is what we label the emergent pattern formed by a distributed multitude of empowered individuals acting in concert by acting in their own self interest, without any collaboration
Why? What is the justification for this?
PS: I note that your description of 5GW does not include a thinking adversary. Therefore, you would admit that “cancer” is a 5GW?
I think what you see as a critical flaw of 5GW thought (that ‘X’ is a hidden attack instead of the result of a weak system showing its age) is actually what gives the theory of 5GW its greatest strength (that you can’t absolutely be sure that ‘X’ isn’t the result of a hidden attack).
Occam’s razor says it probably is a weak system, and the correct response is to, indeed, build redundancy into the system. The possibility that it is a 5GW attack is likely remote. However, as Taleb writes in The Black Swan, the reason why Black Swans are so disruptive is that we never consider their possibility. That is what makes 5G attacks so insidious and devastating. We can’t assume everything is a 5GW attack and yet it seems we must almost always honor the threat of the possibility of a 5GW attack. It leads to a 5GW analysis paralysis.
On a side note, I don’t particularly agree with your definition of 5GW, but I will say that SEIs who happen to be working in similar directions may have the same sort of effects of a 5GW campaign (the Anthrax attacks, show bombers and ect. post-9-/11), but the affect of a 5GW campaign, since it is warfare and not mindless destruction, is focused on an end result or achieveing a specific set of circumstances.
I should point out I am not saying that a 5GW is occurring.
I was using the example and Wolf’s comment as part of a What-If type exercise.
I do believe a well run 5GW might choose a series of actions that strive to have the action taking place look like a series of accidents or systematic failures to avoid detection and retaliation and yet still provoke a certain response (spend money on more guards and physical security, build more redundancy into the system, build more refineries) – or push memes like “stop worrying about stuff happening abroad – the infrastructure at home is crumbling”. If not provoke, at least nudge the state and influencers in that direction.
Shloky is correct to point out that there is a danger in seeing patterns or conspiracies where there are none and drawing conclusions that some secret puppet master is pulling strings. That way can lead to madness or Analysis Paralysis.
On the other hand, as I have said before (http://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2006/05/30/5gw-will-hide-in-the-sea-of-conspiracy-theories-to-avoid-discovery/), in a perfectly reasonable and rational reaction like Shloky’ s also leads the way to cover for a 5GW op.
The 5GW-ers (we really need a better term) may depend upon a societal response to those spotting the shadows of 5GW ranging from “there is nothing to see here – move along” to “Jeez that crackpot thinks he sees a conspiracy”.
The adversary has the potential to be thinking. During conflict, one strives to deceive, distract, and confuse one’s opponents.
Fifth Generation Warfare goes one further in that it also strives for the adversary to not even know (or at least adds in ambiguity) that it is in a conflict.
This is true if it is a puppet master messing with refineries to nudge change in domestic security resource allocation, strategic citizens infiltrating institutions and subverting them from within, or those creating capabilities/tools/institutions for future use by a state for problems most of the so-called leaders do not even currently notice (yes I have been reading TDAXP MISC series…I like it…I will blog it soon).
“5GW is what we label the emergent pattern formed by a distributed multitude of empowered individuals acting in concert by acting in their own self interest, without any collaboration.”
This is not how I define 5GW.
FYI: What follows is not meant to sound nasty or start a flame war – this blog is one check out almost daily – I like this blog. So don’t read any aggression or nastiness into what follows please.
Shloky: I think you are suggesting that 5GW theory is a waste of time, it doesn’t exists now, it can’t exists or be created in the future (near or far), and that those of thinking about the possibilities are wasting their time…unless they define 5GW as the system that emerges from groups of people (maybe Global Guerrillas but not necessarily) independent and non-coordinating for the most part.
Do I understand that correctly?
Sorry for so many comments today. Lucky for me, this is one of the few websites I can hit from work nowadays!
Shlok,
I don’t see how Curtis’s comment is interpreted to mean there *must* be an “invisible hand” guiding the behavior of the collective. In fact, just the opposite: maybe there is, maybe there isn’t — but could a doctrine of rational self-interest be employed to determine the identity of the attacker?
I’ve mentioned before that a 5GW campaign to influence the fundamental context of perception would fare better if it was completely decentralized.
BTW: The Wizard in Oz was inept and incapable of providing any real nor lasting change. So I submit there is not a Wizard in *that* Oz either…
LOL. Curtis, why do you always answer the critics of your theoretical constructs with attacks and/or gross misrepresentations of my work?
John, if you think Curtis is misrepresenting your work it may be because it has been difficult to define.
It would be useful here if you could clarify what you consider the mis-representation above.
Hey, I bought the book so hopefully that will give you the urge to reply constructively!
Thanks!
To me, 5GW are the patterns of conflict that emerge from a need to counteract repeated successes of 4GW forces. Therefore, I think we will see a wide diversity of attempts along with unintentional ones that evolve out of societal reaction to 4GW.
Those patterns that succeed, fairly reliably, in frustrating or circumventing 4GW forces, will be 5GW. Right now though, it’s all entirely speculative, including my own commentary on the subject.
John,
You were the one who misrepresented your work by labeling GG “fifth-generation warfare.” Your insistence on defining Global Guerrillas as multiple, non-coordinating and entirely self-interested guerrillas, who largely do not share common goals and motivations, automatically places your theory outside the realm of any theory of warfare that can fit within the xGW model. I mean, as a collective. Individual groups of GG may operate at 3GW, 4GW, perhaps even 4GW+ — given that Lind’s 4GW is as open-ended and ill-defined; but calling the whole dynamic a generation of warfare is misleading.
However, as you may know, I’ve found a place for your GG in 5GW. If individual GG groups begin operating at a 5GW, this does not mean that all will, nor that “Global Guerrillas” itself is the fifth generation of warfare.
Fifth generation war planners will need to be able to examine the environment which they would alter. Thus, the things you describe will be important for that examination. I have also said numerous times that I keep an eye on your website; this is why. I’ve also often previous said that GG describes the environment more than anything else, from a 5GW perspective.
Finally, your second book, from what I’ve read, may actually leap into the real 5GW (as you see it.) If you go back and read my comment to Shlok, above, rather than offer your usual inconsequential one-line comebacks, you might begin to grasp what I’m saying. A theory of warfare is not merely prophetic warnings of dire futures and the troublesome present; no, it must have a use and be used. As you determine how resilliencies can be built to offset or overcome the GG dynamic, you’ll be developing a type of 5GW. Finally.
–or, I should add, if you expand what you have already written into a consideration of how these diverse and self-interested GGs might begin to work closely together, conscientiously attacking the system from multiple points, in order to build a new type of world they all want, that, too, might begin to approach a real theory of 5GW. (So, given some recent discussion, the two — coordinating-GGs-5GW and the resiliency-builders-5GW — may be the 5GW insurgency and 5GW counterinsurgency.)
(Hmmm…I keep getting a “duplicate comment” whenever I try to add an addendum to that comment. Will this comment even appear?)
(Trying again…)
Addendum to comment left for John:
–or, I should add, if you expand what you have already written into a consideration of how these diverse and self-interested GGs might begin to work closely together, conscientiously attacking the system from multiple points, in order to build a new type of world they all want, that, too, might begin to approach a real theory of 5GW. (So, given some recent discussion, the two — coordinating-GGs-5GW and the resiliency-builders-5GW — may be the 5GW insurgency and 5GW counterinsurgency.)
Misrepresented my work as 5GW? LOL.
You act as if there is a fully defined and accepted theory of 5GW out there. There isn’t. I pointed to some trends that are likely to define it in my article on the topic. Hammes has too. Lind is adamant that it doesn’t exist yet and all speculation is foolish at this point.
That being said, I enjoy the speculative theory (particularly from Dan) on the topic the D5GW team is working on.
[...] The discussion moved to here then to here. [...]
[...] The Wizard And The Invisible Hurricane | Shlok Vaidya’s Thinking WHOA JOHN ROBB BEING SORT OF A BITCH (tags: gg security offload) [...]
[...] Shloky has defined 5GW in a superficially similar way as: 5GW is what we label the emergent pattern formed by a distributed multitude of empowered individuals acting in concert by acting in their own self interest, without any collaboration. [...]
very intresting
[...] http://shloky.com/?p=762#comment-33197 : Shloky is correct to point out that there is a danger in seeing patterns or conspiracies where [...]