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.