View
217
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
Fourth Generation War Evolves,
Fifth Emerges
T. X. HammesAugust 2007
2
Marine Palm Pilot
3
Purpose
How and why warfare changes
Recent evolutions in fourth generation
Potential fifth generation
What’s after that
4
4GW is Just a Model Varied terminology used in descriptionsToffler’s Waves Forms of Energy Generations of RMAs
Fourth Generation ConstructFocus on modern warSimple AQ uses it
5
War Reflects Society
Economic
Political
Social
Technology
“Military institutions and the manner in which they employ violencedepended on the economic, social and political conditions of theirrespective states.” On War, Clausewitz, Paret translation, pg. 6.
6
Four Generations
Massed Manpower – Napoleonic
Massed Firepower – WW I
Mechanized War – WW II
Insurgency (information) – dominant since WW II
7
Fourth Generation War
8
ChinaMao – Political struggle is PRIMARY
Organized all of society
Three phases One – Political organization Two – Guerrilla fight – “change correlation of
forces” Three – Conventional fight – ONLY after Phase II
is successful
First to write it down
9
VietnamImitated and improved on Mao
Used international networks to change correlation of forces
Tet 68 disaster tactically, strategic victory
Used political power to negate US military power
Still ended with conventional invasion
10
NicaraguaCoalition of insurgent groups
NEVER sought military victory
Target was US Congress International media, celebrities, mainline Christian churches
Defeated Somoza politically
No Phase III offensive
11
Palestinians – Intifada I
First Intifada spontaneous eruption Organized within weeks Loosely affiliated – “self organizing web” Never even had a military aspect
Multiple messages International – children vs. powerful army Israelis – Israel proper safe, occupied zone unsafe Palestinians – We are holding our own
Result – 1993 Oslo Accords
12
Intifada I - Children vs Army
The Lasting Images
13
Al Aqsa Intifada
Reverses roles Israel back to besieged Palestinians back to ruthless terroristsUS position
No negotiation until terror stopsSupports Israeli security techniques
Includes seizure of more territory on West Bank
14
Al Aqsa Intifada – Oppression
15
Suicide Bombers
16
Afghans vs. Soviets
No unified resistance – changing coalitionsEssentially tribal = network Overlaid religious and xenophobic aspects
Massive killing failed
Broke Soviet will
17
Al Qaeda
“Fourth Generation Wars have ... proven the superiority of the weaker power.” Ubeid al-Qurashi Jan 2002
Proto-typical non-nation state 4GW enemy Transnational coalition of willing Idea based Global network of local insurgents Strategic guidance is vertical Tactical support is horizontal
18
IraqClassic 4GW approach"The war is very long, and always think of
this as the beginning. And always make the enemy think that yesterday was better than today.'‘ ZARQAWI
Tribal, ethnic and religious networks
Was Network of the willingSunni Salifi, Sunni secular, Shia radicals,
Free Lancers, Foreign Jihadists
Now the predictable civil war
19
Hizbollah-Israeli Summer War
Hizb understood political aspectsBuilt political base – servicesFought political fightSaw victory is secured after fighting
High-low mixLong range missiles Israeli focus122mm Rockets most effectiveTechnological surprise – C802, UAV
Lateral escalation!
20
Will we go back to 3GW?
War is “contest of opposing wills”
Cost of hightech vs insurgency
Record of successConventional = Status quoUnconventional = Change
5-0 versus Superpowers
21
4th Generation – Insurgency Evolved
Direct attack on minds of decision makersUses all available networks – political, economic, social and militarySuperior political will defeats greater economic and military power. Wars are measured in decades.
Political, Protracted, Networked
22
Key Changes in 4GW since Mao
Strategic Shift
Organizational Shift
Participants Increase
Weapons
23
Strategic Shift –Insurgents’ View
NOT a military campaign
Strategic Communications CampaignSupported by interagency effortsMilitary action is NOT primaryMilitary action cannot solve the problem
24
Operational Shift
Coalition of the willingAfghanistan, Chechnya, IraqOften hate each other
Transdimensional Identify, recruit, indoctrinate, train, deploy,
controlAttackFund
25
Participants
Armed groups
Clans, tribes
Criminals
Private Military CompaniesState use as well
26
Weapons ofMass Disruption
Previous Incidents
27
Anthrax and Ricin Capitol Hill
Included a warning and instructions
28
Bombings
MadridLondon
29
Weapons ofMass Destruction
Practical Methods
30
Chemical: Bhopal
One temporary morgue
Killed = 15,000 Long term injury = 200,000
31
HYE: Oklahoma City
Truckload of Ammonium Nitrate
32
Texas City Ship Explosion
Rail Cars – 3 / 4 Mile from zero
33
HYE: Texas City Ship Explosion
Shipload of Ammonium Nitrate
34
Summary of 4GW
Conflict is now Strategic Communications Focus is outsiders Internal conflict still bloody
Enemy will be shifting “coalition of the willing”
Many more players with various motivations
Cheaper, deadlier weapons
35
Fifth Generation Emerges
36
S CurvesInnovation/Technology Development
Experimentation
Institutionalization
Rapid Growth
Adoption
Maturation
Innovation
37
Generations of War
2d –
Branches
5th – All of Society
4th – All of Govt.
3d – Combined Arms
Time
Pre
vale
nce/
Per
form
ance
38
5GW Incubating Now
Political – Pressure on nation state
Economic – Smaller Entities
Social – Loyalty to cause not nation
Technology - Bio tech, Nano-tech, Always on Net
39
ForeshadowingAttacks Capitol Hill -- anthrax - no information London, Madrid – bombs – no connection
Increasing “cause” attacks Earth Liberation, Animal Liberation Fronts
Several areas – cyber, nano, bio Biological advances Synthetic biology – Dr. Venter Australians and Mouse Pox Carlson’s Curve British student
40
5GW Goal
Stop GlobalizationPotential “coalition of the willing”
Globalization losersFundamentalist movementsEnvironmental radicals
Destroy ‘trust’ – inhibit movement Information – physical not cyberPersonnel – relationshipsMaterial - containers
41
Nightmare 5GW
Super empowered individual or small group
Uses increasing power of knowledge creates “off the shelf” technology
Loyalty to “cause” not nation
Anthrax on Capitol Hill
Smallpox Worldwide
42
Beyond 5GW
43
Rate of Change
Kurzweil’s SINGULARITYChange is exponential not linearOverestimate in short termUnderestimate in long term
44
Bottom Line
21st Century will not bring100 years of progress
It will be 20,000 years
45
Additional Information
www.d-n-i.net
“The Sling and the Stone”
txhammes@excite.com
Recommended