A thousand flowers will bloom on 5GW, and countless more weeds
Tuesday, October 17, 2006 at 4:45AM John Robb has chosen to interpret my post of yesterday as an attempt to claim "global guerillas" as my own concept, folding it (apparently) into my attempt to argue where I think my ideas can fit within an emerging definition of Fifth Generation Warfare.
I will confess to be somewhat flabbergasted by the charge. But I respect John's work enough that I believe I should address it.
I didn't employ 5GW in either of my books, although I did briefly explore 4GW in Blueprint, essentially naming (as most do) William Lind as the major initial influence for the concept. As I've written my stuff, I haven't attempted to fit my vision within any definition of generations because I--quite frankly--haven't seen any way to do so and I couldn't see any utility in doing so for the general reader because I've typically found such discussion too esoteric for my writing style.
But thanks to the very interesting ideas rising up from this brew of bloggers currently exploring the concept of 5GW (especially Dan Abbott's brilliant bit of laying the generations on top of Boyd's OODA loop--perhaps simplistic and yet I find it way cool), often placing my proposed solutions sets within that framework, I've recently become interested in making such arguments on my own. I don't find this evolution particularly amazing. When they called it the Global War on Terrorism, so did I (I chose not to fight the reigning buzz phrases), and when Long War supplanted that notion, I'm more than cool to shift to that one.
To me, the shifting of the conversation from 4GW to 5GW that this universe of bloggers is pursuing seems natural enough: since 4GW is viewed as an asymmetrical response to our "overmatch" in 3GW capabilities, it's only natural that our attempted response to 4GW be cast as some further iteration.
Having said that, I can readily understand John's trepidation at that development, since he offers his own, particularly striking definition of 5GW, and naturally, he feels quite proprietary about that because he's got a book coming out where he's laying claim to serious ownership of those ideas. So when I write a post entitled "My personal 5GW dream," it's easy for me to see why John can get riled up and nervous that somebody is trying to steal his concepts. I'm sure that in John's view, there's a bit of a race right now to be the guy who makes the definitive definition of 5GW stick in the blogosphere, and John's certainly entitled to make both his own case and defend it vigorously, but he's got to be careful not to try and take on all-comers everytime they explore 5GW, because my sense is that would be both a herculean and pointless task. Frankly, if bloggers weren't referencing my ideas in this context, I wouldn't have waded in, because I've found it better in my career to simply coin or kluge together my own lingo, rather than lay claim to some additional iteration of an already established canon, like either the generations stuff or the -centric stuff. I just find such efforts too hard because of all the zealots you run into. John's apparently a braver man than I on this score, but again, I would caution him not to try and defeat all competing definitions as they emerge.
I like John's writing within the concept he calls "global guerillas," specifically some of his descriptions of the dynamics we'll meet from nonstate actors in coming years. I do not, however, subscribe to his overarching description that this constitutes a new form of war or that nonstate actors represent anywhere near the threat level he proposes. I see them primarily as friction in globalization's advance, just the latest (and most cynical and self-serving) iteration of individual-level resistance to the global economy's advance. This is not me seeing the glass half-full and John half-empty. John sees the glass all empty and I just don't buy it.
Let me go on the record saying I have no intention nor desire to claim the concept of "global guerrillas." If I've ever used the phrase or the concept and not credited John, somebody please point it out.
In fairness to John, he's got a book coming out soon where he's laying claim to his own vision of future warfare, and as an author who's been through that process three times now, I understand the tension involved. So I'm just going to assume that John read something in the post that set him off, because, for the life of me, in rereading the post, I simply don't get the charge. If anything, I would interpret the post as arguing against John's definition of global guerillas, making the case that states still dominate the conduct of the Long War (my notion that Bush's strategy of Big Banging the Middle East is essentially an invitation to the global jihadist movement to focus their attention there more conventionally, using the lure of all those American troops).
Now, judging by the comments on John's blog, that argument comes off as callous, because it suggests to some that America is needlessly wasting lives in southwest Asia. That's a fair enough charge, one that's been leveled every time America has ever opened up a front (think back to our choices in WWII, or our decisions on where and when to engage the perceived Soviet/socialist threat across the Cold War), so it's only natural that it's used on Bush's decision to throw down the gauntlet in Iraq. I'm sure it will be leveled against future such decisions in this Long War, even as our numbers lost in this conflict pale in comparison to previous wars, both long and "short" (with that, of course, being a good thing signaling progress in global security). Then again, who would argue against the goodness of Americans becoming agitated over even these small-by-historical-comparison losses, because that shows that our perceived pain thresholds are dropping commensurately with the rise in global order, and that's only as it should be.
But make no mistake, there will be future decisions to open fronts in this Long War--many of them over time. I believe all will be located within the Gap. I also recognize that all will be considered hopeless diversions to some, and God knows that some will be, as we're unlikely to make wise choices throughout a decades-long struggle.
But I don't believe this Long War will become the defining reality of globalization, because I don't see nonstate actors, nor their networks, becoming stronger over time, much less dominant. John sees these "networked tribes" as being already dominant, a view I often run into in this business, but one that I find pointlessly hyperbolic--hence my complete lack of desire to claim any of it for my own definitions of future warfare.
So relax John. I'm sure your book will be well received. I personally look forward to reading it. Trust me, no one is ever going to confuse our world visions, much less buy any perceived attempt on my part to claim your ideas as my own.
One thing I've struggled mightily to get better at is not getting all bent out of shape when people attack my ideas. That's the price you pay when you put them out there in books. And for a long-term thinker like myself, the usual charge will always be that current events totally shit-can your projections of change and adaptation. That rush to judgment is just something you have to get used to.
The other price you pay is that once you publish, you no longer get to drive the bus alone if your ideas find purchase among other thinkers. People start running with them, doing all sorts of stuff you never imagined. This is both very cool and somewhat frightening, requiring any even steadier hand than with the handling of pure criticism--much less the hate mail and the personal accusations.
Within any successful trajectory, and I believe John is definitely on one, there is the temptation to fire on larger targets (I would be one to John only in the sense that I've got books already out that have done reasonably well). I have done this to a sad degree, far too often goiing nuclear on more famous writers (Friedman, Kaplan, Peters, and not too long ago Steyn). It's a very bad habit I'm trying to shake, because it always makes me look small and insecure in comparison, but truth be told, a huge amount of ego is required to lay out your own vision, so such prickliness is an occupational hazard.
What I often find when I behave badly in this manner, is that I get a lot of plaintive and well-meaning lectures from readers who like both me and the target in question, with each begging me to--in effect--grow up and stop acting so threatened by their desire to horizontally connect my work to that of other writers they also admire. In reality, of course, these readers are doing exactly what I constantly preach: they're thinking horizontally and connecting across seemingly opposing or competing world views. Funny how I'm able to do that in my own work and then get so reflexively defensive when readers do the same to my stuff!
But this is all good, and I've come to appreciate the patience of my readers, many of whom have pushed me on the maturity issue with great skill and generosity. I would encourage John to do the same, except he's typically displayed that capacity for incorporating opposing views into this thinking quite well, by my standards. And that's perhaps why I find his lashing out today so unexpected.
But again, no desire on my part to offend John or make him feel like he doesn't own his own ideas. As I said in the post, I think a lot of people are doing some really spectacular things with the notion of Fifth Generation Warfare, the definition of which is clearly going to be contested for quite some time. John's got his, I would offer mine, and then there's everybody else with just as strong an opinion. I wouldn't expect that debate to end conclusively any time soon, even as I understand any author's reflexive sense of ownership as his or her book hits the stand.
Reader Comments (6)
You get "hate mail"? C'mon, you're kidding us, right? Couldn't imagine.
You say you "don't see nonstate actors, nor their networks, becoming stronger over time", and that bothers me a bit; it seems in conflict with your KnoxNews column projecting that GETs (by states and non-state actors, right?) are due, we hope simultaneously wih their countermeasures, in about ten years. As I commented there (and in my own Lancet study remarks, I expect GETs to be amplified by personal manufacturing technology; I see the devastation achievable for a few million bucks by a non-state actor as increasing quite radically with time. I'm not sure why you don't.
You say you "don't see nonstate actors, nor their networks, becoming stronger over time",
I don't know what Barnett sees, but perhaps 'stronger' for these specific non-state actors is relative to the forces of stability. In GG and similar theories, there appears to be an assumption that approx. 99.9% of the world population (or more!) will just sit back and let the forces of chaos reign, that even the kind of devastation possible by a superempowered individual will outweigh any kind of potential response to such devastation. Chaos is assumed to emerge, but order is not.
The biggest problem with such a theory (of many) is this assumption of passivity for the vast majority of the human population. Whereas, every single bit of technology, from the low-tech to the futuristic high-tech, will also be available to those 99.9%. Methods of social organization (e.g., open source) will also be available to those 99.9%. In fact, many of those 99.9% will also be 'superempowered,' just like Robb's mythical GG's. So a better vision of the future would take these factors into account: From a Wild West perspective, the chaos will not only be about 'bestial strangers' (demons) appearing from nowhere to destroy all the hard-built homesteads, leading to perpetual wilderness, but also about the efforts of those building their livelihood amidst the chaos.
And that metaphor, btw, makes no difference whether you take a nativist or a homesteader p.o.v., since either group worked hard to establish their own particular sense of order. Despite all the chaos that came from conflict, an order emerged. So when Robb will argue on the one hand that these demons popping up all over the place will have no common motivation but destruction, and on the other hand that they will somehow manage to work together in a stable 'bazaar of violence' funded by a stable 'black globalization' and developing into 'virtual states' -- first they are disconnected 4GWarriors he says, then when 5GW discussion kicks in, his GG are somehow suddenly 5GWarriors rather than 4GW -- I think he is only trying to work around the fact that even these pseudo-demons will have tendencies toward order: i.e., establishing their own sort of order. They are not endless chaos generators.
Barnett's far too easy on John Robb. GG, in order for it to actually become a reality, has been twisted into a self-sustaining prophesy powered by selective but obstinate ignorance -- i.e., by ignoring large realities. If you believe real demons exist, and moreover that they are entirely unstoppable because no real angels exist, you'll buy into the prophecy being given by Robb.
On the other hand: and this is important: as I've argued before, Robb's outlining a phenomenon rather than a generation of warfare or any type of coherent operational methodology. When I read GG, I pay close attention to what Robb is saying, because he is in large part describing a significant aspect of the environment that will face us (who are the 99.9% he generally disregards.) There is of course the possibility, I think, that some one GG faction or handful of superempowered individuals will succeed in a major strike at order, fueled by destructive high technology, causing everything to collapse globally; a particularly vicious virus might do it. So there is that to keep in mind. Organizations like Lifeboat (and many others) are keeping that in mind, however.
Excellent discussion.
Curtis, you echo my underlying logic extremely well. Truth is, the future dystopians like Orwell are always wrong. Tech favors freedom over repression and order over chaos.
Robb is very smart, but views life through a very narrow prism of conflict. It's a theory of war, but one with no understanding of peace. As such, he must bet always on chaos, otherwise he's wrong. A true theory of war AND peace can handle everything.
Tom,
It has only been in the last week or so that Robb has publicly claimed that the "Global Guerillas" concept is 5GW.
Prior to that he stated it is 4GW. Personally, I understood it to be really a potential different form of 3GW( http://purpleslog.wordpress.com/2006/05/30/am-i-understanding-the-gist-of-the-global-guerilla-concept/ )
Those of us who had been exploring possible 5GW thinking for the past year have not considered GG to be 5GW, to the best of my recollection.
So, I wouldn't worry about crossing into "his" territory. Thinking about 5GW is open and unbranded, with plenty of pre GG-as-5GW examples. Nobody owns the concept. There is plenty of room for exploring and developing the possibilities.
Purpleslog,
Good to hear. This was my assumption going into the post. My guess is that John's committed certain things to paper (if his book's coming out in the spring with Wiley, then it has to be in editing by now) and I crossed some of his thinking in the post. As somebody who's been through the agonizing wait on a book, that's a hugely hard time to sit through, worrying about being pre-empted in any way.
But honestly, John and I really don't argue in the same spheres, so I don't know why he would be nervous.