Cain's 5th Generation Warfare Project

[Cain]

This is the thread where I'll be posting links, thoughts, downloads and outlines of what I consider as a useful model towards helping solving a current problem - the framework of 5th Generation Warfare.

The biggest 'problem' of our current imes is power asymmetry - in short, our "leaders" are becoming less empowered while everyday human beings can access more information and power than ever before.

Let's take a moment to savor the flavor of Newspeak here -- "Asymmetrical Warfare" is actually the most "symmetrical" form of warfare that's ever existed, because it puts small dedicated groups of insurgents on equal footing with any military on earth. It is actually the restoration of power balance in human culture, and these birth pangs of the Kali Yuga are the sign of something better on the horizon.

The Patriot Post breaks down 5th Generation warfare as thus:

A. The technological advances represented by the Internet;

B. Scalability of impact;

C. Information as an empowering and leveling force;

D. The media as an independent organ that is stronger, more pervasive, and more independent than ever before;

E. Borders no longer impede data flow.

This convergence is neither neat nor simple, precisely because it is a multiplicity of converging factors. Calling 5GW "Information Operations" is an extreme oversimplification, because that is merely one aspect. With the exception of the Internet, these contributories are capable of historical reduction. The Internet of today can be likened to the Guttenberg printing press in the 15th Century in terms of its revolutionary.aspect for dissemination, though it is exponentially more powerful. The aspects of scalability and the decreased effectiveness of borders are absorbed into the uniqueness of this technology.

Regarding scalability, this is a factor of immense importance. At no other time in human history has it been possible for one person to destroy the functional productivity of a world economy with the push of a button; however, the "love bug" virus did precisely that, for approximately a week, before being eradicated. One programmer unleashed literally billions of dollars of damage to business across the world; however, the damage was widespread and unfocused. A small team of cyber warriors could no-doubt create incredible damage, yet limit the scope and spread of the damage with proper tools.

World-wide, the media has expanded and become independent. The mere fact of publication in a particular country no longer means that that particular nation endorses the contents. This is especially true with television and the Internet. Censorship is increasingly difficult to effect. Indeed, when media personalities seek to destroy or create political realities through sheer fabrication (Dan Rather's fraudulent documents come to mind), or the inappropriate release of national sensitive data (e.g., Geraldo Rivera), we enter a dangerous Brave New World.

The Strategist goes further, defining 5th Gen as:

the use of "all means whatsoever – means that involve the force of arms and means that do not involve the force of arms, means that involve military power and means that do not involve military power, means that entail casualties, and means that do not entail casualties – to force the enemy to serve one's own interest."(5) It includes the appearance of super-empowered individuals and groups with access to modern knowledge, technology, and means to conduct asymmetric attacks in furtherance of their individual and group interests. Arguably, its first identifiable manifestations occurred in the United States during the anthrax attacks of 2001 and the ricin attacks of 2004. Both sets of attacks required specialized knowledge, included attacks upon federal government offices and facilities, succeeded in disrupting governmental processes, and created widespread fear in the public. To date, no individual or group has claimed responsibility for either attack, and neither attack has been solved. The attacks were quite successful in disrupting government processes and creating public fear but, thus far, their motivation remains unknown.

Its a complex and still developing field.  But I intend to try and get onto the cutting edge of this, and find out how useful it really is as a model, and what solutions and inspiration it can provide for modern day issues.

[That One Guy]

Now THIS is some fascinating stuff. While there have been hints and beginnings of this sort of thing (Vietnam showing small groups overcoming a large military machine, Iraq showing small cells disrupting and influencing military strategies), the full force of this is still only just beginning.

I think the most important thing at this stage of development is to ensure the free flow of information. Net neutrality or anything else that disrupts that flow (such as the Chinese blocked sites - working hand in hand with the large internet engines) is probably the biggest obstacle to overcome at this point. I think the best bet is to have a multi-tiered system of information sites. One level operating completely "underground", separate from most websites/servers, linked rarely if at all with limited access. Another level operating as a more publicly accessible, yet low-traffic/profile webspace - something viewable if you look for it for a bit, open to the public but only hinting at the details and plans involved in the purely "underground" repository. The third level a publicly accessible meeting-point, innocuous on the surface, that functions as a clearing-house and public (yet semi-anonymous) meeting area for any interested (pro or con) parties, that operates within whatever legal structures are necessary.

The Islamic jihadist extremists have been developing this sort of multi-tiered information flow for a few years now, so the model seems to be viable, protecting identity while still allowing the dissemination of plans/propaganda/etc. It seems to be the best current model to organize a wide-spread small-cell resistance movement, and is definitely worth looking into for adaptation.

Once information-dissemination is dealt with, how the group is organized is probably the next largest stumbling block. The proportion of organization to independent planning/action is key, IMO. Small, loosely (if at all) connected cells that are capable of independent action yet still coordinated via a central point (whether committee, group or individual) is probably the best bet, but achieving the right balance is key. Too much central control denies cells independent action, too little and the overall movement loses focus when acting towards a goal. Again, the many systems of Islamic jihad are showing some ways that balance is being achieved, with the mullah guiding the overall focus of the group, while giving individual cells the freedom to carry out actions that fit the overall goals of the particular movement. There are many lessons to be learned from what groups gain power and what groups lose it.

This is just off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts - I'm definitely interested in whatever you run across regarding this Cain. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread no doubt.

[Richter]

Had a few questions / rumiantions form the get go on this, while I'm reading the links:

What kind of schedule does this concept deal with? 
I'd guess it suppsoes working on a one month – several years timeframe as far as going from internet and information to any act. (employment of the substance / device / technique described in a significant manner.)
Examples and a bit of reasoning seemed to point to this.  Any shorter term the information is rendered useless by the preparation and training required.  (ex: learning grappling from a book, but never having the conditioning or training to use it.)

Also, thought it was intersting to look at this in light of restriction of personal freedoms.   

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Arguably, its first identifiable manifestations occurred in the United States during the anthrax attacks of 2001 and the ricin attacks of 2004.

[/quote]

Hrmmm, I think I disagree with this. Both Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh (also Terry Nichols), seem to fit the definition. Kaczynski alone, would move 5th Gen warfare back to the 1970's... and I would say that he caused as much (if not more) panic over decades of attacks, as opposed to the Anthrax and Ricen that sorta died out shortly after the attacks.

Thoughts?

[Cain]

TOG:

Information freedom is absolutely essential yes.  I mentioned this in my post on networked warfare http://blackironprison.com/index.php?title=Netwar#Speed but it should be made explicit, yes.  Multiple, redundant channels of shared information FTW.

The rest of the article also touches on organizational capacity, as it relates to netwar.


Richter:

What kind of schedule does this concept deal with?

In terms of an emerging paradigm, this is pretty much what is just starting to be talked about in depth right now.  As things stand, internationally, its probably the next stage of conflict.  Right now many people consider the War on Terror to be a version of Fourth Generation warfare - as William Lind defines it, at least.  Unless you are talking about something else, of course.

I'd guess it suppsoes working on a one month – several years timeframe as far as going from internet and information to any act.

Actually, one of the principles of all modern warfare is to act more quickly and efficiently - within the enemy OODA loop.  I'm going to write something on this in a bit, but part of the logic behind decentralization is so that localized groups can take advantage of new and emerging situations more rapidly.

Of course, if you are fighting an undeclared, secret war or using a sneak attack to cripple a nation, you have time to play with.  But on the tactical level, it is meant to be very swift.

Examples and a bit of reasoning seemed to point to this.  Any shorter term the information is rendered useless by the preparation and training required.

True.  Of course, another principle of 5th Gen is anything is a weapon when used right.  The idea is to use things that are already known about, but in novel and unexpected ways in order to wage one's war.  Chances are very little specialized knowledge, and thus preparation or training would be required, beyond a certain level.

[Cain]

Arguably, its first identifiable manifestations occurred in the United States during the anthrax attacks of 2001 and the ricin attacks of 2004.

Hrmmm, I think I disagree with this. Both Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh (also Terry Nichols), seem to fit the definition. Kaczynski alone, would move 5th Gen warfare back to the 1970's... and I would say that he caused as much (if not more) panic over decades of attacks, as opposed to the Anthrax and Ricen that sorta died out shortly after the attacks.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure.  I think you have a point, but equally the anthrax attacks were more disruptive to the function of government, whereas the Unabomber seemed to fall under the rubric of traditional terrorism in his targets and aims.  He went for symbolic targets and representative enemies, mostly.  The main function of the anthrax was to cause problems in the running of the country and waste time and resources during a period of high concern and panic, which I think is the main difference.

Again with McVeigh, he was trying to create a foci of a traditional uprising, much in the vein of Che's views on warfare.  Which seems to be more 4th Gen than 5th (going by John Robb).

The Unabomber had the potential to be, but never followed through.  As far as I can see.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Arguably, its first identifiable manifestations occurred in the United States during the anthrax attacks of 2001 and the ricin attacks of 2004.

Hrmmm, I think I disagree with this. Both Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh (also Terry Nichols), seem to fit the definition. Kaczynski alone, would move 5th Gen warfare back to the 1970's... and I would say that he caused as much (if not more) panic over decades of attacks, as opposed to the Anthrax and Ricen that sorta died out shortly after the attacks.

Thoughts?

I'm not sure.  I think you have a point, but equally the anthrax attacks were more disruptive to the function of government, whereas the Unabomber seemed to fall under the rubric of traditional terrorism in his targets and aims.  He went for symbolic targets and representative enemies, mostly.  The main function of the anthrax was to cause problems in the running of the country and waste time and resources during a period of high concern and panic, which I think is the main difference.

Again with McVeigh, he was trying to create a foci of a traditional uprising, much in the vein of Che's views on warfare.  Which seems to be more 4th Gen than 5th (going by John Robb).

The Unabomber had the potential to be, but never followed through.  As far as I can see.

Excellent points... maybe they are 4.2 Gen Warfare

[Cain]

Yeah, they're definitely precursors, and edging in on it...but I'd be hesistant to put them in the same category.

Of course, 5th Gen is a very fluid term at the moment anyway, and its definition is hotly contested.  But from my current understanding of the term, they don't precisely fit the bill.

Incidentally, if you want an example of what McVeigh was trying working, look at the Golden Mosque bombing in Iraq.  The problem was he was all torqued up on reading the Turner Diaries and hanging out with the Patriots and thought he could kick-start a civil war.  He read the social fault lines incorrectly, and the Christian Identity/Militias were not committed to anything beyond occasional standoffs with the FBI and murdering a lone Jew/Gay/foreigner/liberal when the chance presented itself.

[Richter]

Examples and a bit of reasoning seemed to point to this.  Any shorter term the information is rendered useless by the preparation and training required.

True.  Of course, another principle of 5th Gen is anything is a weapon when used right.  The idea is to use things that are already known about, but in novel and unexpected ways in order to wage one's war.  Chances are very little specialized knowledge, and thus preparation or training would be required, beyond a certain level.

Thanks, this clarifies a good bit of my immediate application vs. delayed application questions.

So we're basically looking at tactical effectivenes being enhanced for any group which can quickly and acurately acquire, comprehend and apply vast ammounts of data?

TOG was apt to say that freedom of information is key for this.  

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Yeah, they're definitely precursors, and edging in on it...but I'd be hesistant to put them in the same category.

Of course, 5th Gen is a very fluid term at the moment anyway, and its definition is hotly contested.  But from my current understanding of the term, they don't precisely fit the bill.

Incidentally, if you want an example of what McVeigh was trying working, look at the Golden Mosque bombing in Iraq.  The problem was he was all torqued up on reading the Turner Diaries and hanging out with the Patriots and thought he could kick-start a civil war.  He read the social fault lines incorrectly, and the Christian Identity/Militias were not committed to anything beyond occasional standoffs with the FBI and murdering a lone Jew/Gay/foreigner/liberal when the chance presented itself.

Yeah, I guess that's what I was thinking when I mentioned him as a 5th gen possibility. I think we could consider him an Independent Actor conducting an asymmetric attack to further his and (what he thought were) other groups goals, same for Ted... though neither successfully interrupted the government for any meaningful period of time... the methods seemed to be similar. Sorta like the lines between First/Second/Third gen warfare... In the Sling and the Stone, the author discussed how every new form of warfare starts to appear in the previous war. So we see some of the 2nd gen warfare, in Germany's final plays during WWI, then those come out in full force during WWII.

So maybe McVeigh and Teddy were indeed precursors... people who figured out the medium, but not the strategy?

Of course, just as with previous wars (again according to Hammes) we usually could predict the next form of warfare, if we were observant enough to see the trend from earlier. So then, the US could have taken the two we mentioned, plus the first attempt on WTC... and, at least, made a guess that future conflict might focus heavily on non-traditional warfare. Instead we built a Missile Defense system and worked on "Nucular" Hand Grenades...

[Cain]

Examples and a bit of reasoning seemed to point to this.  Any shorter term the information is rendered useless by the preparation and training required.

True.  Of course, another principle of 5th Gen is anything is a weapon when used right.  The idea is to use things that are already known about, but in novel and unexpected ways in order to wage one's war.  Chances are very little specialized knowledge, and thus preparation or training would be required, beyond a certain level.

Thanks, this clarifies a good bit of my immediate application vs. delayed application questions.

So we're basically looking at tactical effectivenes being enhanced for any group which can quickly and acurately acquire, comprehend and apply vast ammounts of data?

TOG was apt to say that freedom of information is key for this.   

Yeah, I don't know if TOG is heavily into the literature or just smart as hell, but either way he was dead on the money.



Rata: indeed.  Often you see the innovations coming beforehand, because...well, Black Swan theory suggests such innovations are caused by experimentation and luck.  With a sufficient social and technological gap between any given conflicts, the more conflict there is, the chance of a new system evolving approaches one, so long as people are innovating.

And yes, US government spending is one reason so many in the military are worried.  China and Russia, who these systems are aimed at, are light years behind the US, and not currently a threat.  Meanwhile, the people who are a thread cannot be conventionally deterred.  They're trying to fight the last war.

[Richter]

In what we're thusfar calling 5th Gen. Warfare, it really is the lynchpin. 
(Doesn't matter how much you can accomplish with a pass through a grocery store and some guts if you don't know WHAT to do.)

The only other factor I can see being readily and actively quashed is will / morale. 
(Doesn't matter WHAT you know how to do without the guts to go out and do it.  (Now THERE's an idea to take to heart...))

[That One Guy]

We're definitely in transition between 4th and 5th generation, highlighted by the examples in here - the Anthrax attacks being a more 5th gen, the Iraqi cells more 4th gen (as they're organized on a more structured, classic resistance-movement/terrorist framework), the Russian cyber-attacks on Estonia being one of the first manifestations of governmental 5th gen warfare from what I would call it.

Infrastructure attack has long been a pillar of warfare, from destroying bridges and supply-lines to burning crops to bombing factories. The 5th gen seems to me to take minimal initial stimulus (IE an envelope of a powdery substance, or a program that attacks another country's internet system) and uses publicly available information (a Senator's address, the IPs of the Estonian government) to get maximum results in the standard infrastructure attack tactic. It's the methodology as well as the target that makes the distinction from previous generations from what I can see. Chaos theory as tactical approach. Is that accurate or am I missing a bit?

I'm actually not really into the literature - I just think about all of this, see what works and what doesn't, and extrapolate forward. I've long been fascinated with small-cell resistance groups and their effectiveness (or lack thereof), and the internet has really vastly expanded the possibilities. I saw the precursor of some of this with the Anarchist's Cookbook back in the BBS days, and I've been keeping an eye on how the Islamic Jihadists are organizing via the web. That definitely looks to be the methodology that has the highest chance of being able to exploit the weaknesses of a large-scale military force, that which is most likely to act as the oppressor/aggressor and thus is most in need of viable resistance.

Without the ability to rapidly if not instantaneously exchange information (text messaging is HUGE for this as well and a code system can easily circumvent monitoring), none of the coordination necessary to exploit the weaknesses of the military (bureaucratic structure, hard-written response tactics, little room for improvisation of tactics quickly as orders must follow chain of command, large group size) are possible - the weaknesses are limited in duration and unless there is rapid, fluid coordination of information via whatever sources those weaknesses cannot be exploited.

Free information also allows for propaganda distribution - which helps with the will/morale factor, in either direction (increasing or decreasing). With no limitations on what information can be spread, it becomes MUCH easier for any group to spread its message/agenda/propaganda - it then falls on that group to exploit the medium(s) to spread it effectively. With control over the flow of information, such as in China, it becomes MUCH more difficult to spread information contrary to what those in power (defined as those coordinating/restricting information flow) want spread - it forces anyone that disagrees to lose the advantages that come with fast dissemination - anonymity and non-locality of both message and messenger.

Thus, 5th gen warfare - at least as far as those opposing the "powers" goes - needs that free-flowing channel of information exchange. Hell, the "powers" need it too, but as they control (theoretically) the flow of information, that makes it (again, theoretically) much easier for them to place restrictions on that flow without inhibiting their own channels. Ideally, 5th gen warfare is best won by allowing your enemy as little information-flow as possible while still retaining maximal information flow for your side. Thus the wiretapping, eavesdropping, etc. laws in the U.S., the Chinese internet restrictions (the govt there can see everything, can't they?), the U.S. prosecution of internet sites based on where they're physically hosted, etc.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

We're definitely in transition between 4th and 5th generation, highlighted by the examples in here - the Anthrax attacks being a more 5th gen, the Iraqi cells more 4th gen (as they're organized on a more structured, classic resistance-movement/terrorist framework), the Russian cyber-attacks on Estonia being one of the first manifestations of governmental 5th gen warfare from what I would call it.

Infrastructure attack has long been a pillar of warfare, from destroying bridges and supply-lines to burning crops to bombing factories. The 5th gen seems to me to take minimal initial stimulus (IE an envelope of a powdery substance, or a program that attacks another country's internet system) and uses publicly available information (a Senator's address, the IPs of the Estonian government) to get maximum results in the standard infrastructure attack tactic. It's the methodology as well as the target that makes the distinction from previous generations from what I can see. Chaos theory as tactical approach. Is that accurate or am I missing a bit?

I'm actually not really into the literature - I just think about all of this, see what works and what doesn't, and extrapolate forward. I've long been fascinated with small-cell resistance groups and their effectiveness (or lack thereof), and the internet has really vastly expanded the possibilities. I saw the precursor of some of this with the Anarchist's Cookbook back in the BBS days, and I've been keeping an eye on how the Islamic Jihadists are organizing via the web. That definitely looks to be the methodology that has the highest chance of being able to exploit the weaknesses of a large-scale military force, that which is most likely to act as the oppressor/aggressor and thus is most in need of viable resistance.

Without the ability to rapidly if not instantaneously exchange information (text messaging is HUGE for this as well and a code system can easily circumvent monitoring), none of the coordination necessary to exploit the weaknesses of the military (bureaucratic structure, hard-written response tactics, little room for improvisation of tactics quickly as orders must follow chain of command, large group size) are possible - the weaknesses are limited in duration and unless there is rapid, fluid coordination of information via whatever sources those weaknesses cannot be exploited.

Free information also allows for propaganda distribution - which helps with the will/morale factor, in either direction (increasing or decreasing). With no limitations on what information can be spread, it becomes MUCH easier for any group to spread its message/agenda/propaganda - it then falls on that group to exploit the medium(s) to spread it effectively. With control over the flow of information, such as in China, it becomes MUCH more difficult to spread information contrary to what those in power (defined as those coordinating/restricting information flow) want spread - it forces anyone that disagrees to lose the advantages that come with fast dissemination - anonymity and non-locality of both message and messenger.

Thus, 5th gen warfare - at least as far as those opposing the "powers" goes - needs that free-flowing channel of information exchange. Hell, the "powers" need it too, but as they control (theoretically) the flow of information, that makes it (again, theoretically) much easier for them to place restrictions on that flow without inhibiting their own channels. Ideally, 5th gen warfare is best won by allowing your enemy as little information-flow as possible while still retaining maximal information flow for your side. Thus the wiretapping, eavesdropping, etc. laws in the U.S., the Chinese internet restrictions (the govt there can see everything, can't they?), the U.S. prosecution of internet sites based on where they're physically hosted, etc.

I'll also be interested in seeing how this pans out once the US and interested parties high tail it out of Iraq. Both the Sunni and Shia have been using 5th gen techniques against a larger power, but what happens when they leverage that against one another? Can 5th gen fight 5th gen, or will something else develop when dealing with war between multiple non-national groups?

[That One Guy]

I think they're likely to adapt the 5th gen warfare from the large-group-enemy to the small-cell-enemy. The same tactics are necessary for both, probably more so when going against a similar force. Admittedly, the specific actions will be different but the methodology - fast response to quickly changing environment/stimuli/events - is unchanged.

Rather than coordinating an attack on a battalion of soldiers, you're coordinating an attack against a rival cell's safe-house. Fast access to information is probably MORE crucial since the other side can change more rapidly, necessitating a fast response that can be instantly adjusted if new information is available.

I'd argue that the conflict of large-scale military (using 4th gen tactics/approaches) will evolve into the small-cell model when 5th gen takes over as the predominant form of warfare. We're actually seeing this already - small strike forces with only the vaguest of mission objectives that have access to vast quantities of tactical information (real-time maps, HUDs, etc.) that allow a smaller, more mobile group to acomplish a given objective. With the advances in technology giving greater firepower in smaller packages, the large-scale warfare we're still seeing in Iraq won't last to the next large-scale conflict, especially after people on all levels have witnessed the effectiveness of small-cell warfare against a large-scale force (due in no small part to the free flow of information in the Iraqi conflict).