« Not In Spaces But Between Them: The Geometry of Yog-Sothoth | HomePage | Catholicgauze in Directions Magazine »
Wednesday, March 15, 20061142454071
Identifying 5GWarriors
"Initiating 5GW," by Curtis Weeks, Phatic Communion, 14 March 2006, http://www.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2006/03/initiating_5gw.php (from ZenPundit).
Following the revival on Generational Warfare and the OODA Loop sparked by posts at Coming Anarchy and Mountain Runner, Curtis from Phatic Communion writes a critical post on 5GW. The break-out line:
So, then, how could a hidden 5GW force defeat a fuzzy 4GW force? Influence it to fight another force, one it already despises — and, preferably, one it cannot defeat. Or, introduce dispute within it, of the sort that would paralyze its activities, create massive amounts of in-fighting. Or, befriend it; give it real accomplishments (perhaps by surreptitiously influencing other parties who can give them these) which, nonetheless, lead to final outcomes quite different than it originally intended. Because a 4GW force tends to be decentralized, dependent on local actors and local activities, focus on influencing them. Do not try to destroy the 4GW force; focus on changing it.
This allows us to identity future 5GW forces.
And historical ones too. For instance, here's one:
To break down Curtis list of 5GW tactics in defeat 4GW enemies
- Turn 4GW against another 4GW
- Turn 4GW against itself
- Engorge 4GW
All of which can be summarized as change the 4GW force.
In the late 1960s and 1970s, America was blighted by nascent 4GW enemies. Politico-terrorist organizations like the American Indian Movement, the Black Panther Party, and Students for a Democratic Society / Weather Underground Organization. Faced with a panoply of New Left 4GW insurgencies, the federal government wisely responded with a 5GW counter-blitz.
The liberation of the United States from the militants was the work of the FBI's Counter Intelligent Program, or COINTELPRO.
Director J. Edgar Hoover's orders, to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" internal enemies, all center around changing the enemy force into something much weaker.
I strongly recommend that all read Curtis's post with COINTELPRO in mind. Curtis does an amazing job in making concrete much of 5GW theory. It is a great stride forward in our understanding of the evolving nature of conflict.
A final note: the existence of COINTELPRO was eventually revealed, but by that time it was too late. The 5GWarriors had already won. Even last gasps of internal resistance, the 1GW plodding of the Church Committee, were unable to undo the accomplishments of the 5GWarriors. Events had already been influenced.
14:21 Posted by Dan tdaxp in Doctrine | Permalink | Comments (7) | Email this
Comments
Just a late comment to this entry -- besides thanks for the link and the pertinent example!
I think that 20/20 vision in hindsight, though it will do no good in changing the outcome of an effective 5GW, is no problem, but ...
Trying to identify 5GWarriors during the war presents problems.
In the first case, if there is no such 5GW occurring, then not only does Younghusband's warning (about imaginary foes) apply (creating gross inefficiencies for the Observer) but the attention to conspiracy theories can serve little use (ditto the preceding parenthetical.)
In the second case, if 5GW is actually occurring, then the Observer risks falling into the trap of the 5GWarrior when he tries to identify that warrior, because the 5GWarrior will anticipate such an attempt.
Of course, these caveats assume a nearly perfectly executed 5GW, or adepts for operatives.
One thing that has been circling my mind for some time: Whenever there is doubt, about either the very existence of an occurring 5GW or about the identities of 5GWarriors, the Observer should look for whoever seems to be benefiting the most from current events whatever those events happen to be. No matter the actual occurrence or lack of 5GW, such an observation will help orient any Observer -- although, defining "benefit" with certainty may be extremely difficult.
Posted by: Curtis Gale Weeks | Friday, March 17, 2006
I believe in what you have to say about 5GW. I just have a couple of things to add and would appreciate your opinions on them.
The best General would have no Army, no plan, no objective.
The greatest General is neither visible or invisible. She or he is everything and nothing.
The best Army would be the enemys, because they would be used by you. You would make the enemy's Army his worst.
The best enemy is the one you create and control.
Creating and controlling the enemy does not infer that one creates enemies indiscriminately. Yet if one has an enemy, it is better to have created and controlled him or her.
The most efficient way to defeat the enemy is to make them want to commit suicide, for only the enemy truly knows (or is) its weaknesses.
This statement embodies the core of making the enemys destruction the job of the enemy.
The best way to win is to lose. For losing is vastly easier than winning and is therefore easier to control. If it doesn't work then you have won. To control and dominate this planet, one gains through uncontrol.
The best trick is the one our minds play on ourselves.
There are 3 things I think you should ponder when you analyze through the OODA Loop Theory.
1) Check out Platonia from Julian Barbour and apply his theory to yours. It is that time does not exist, it is a human illusion. That there is no motion.
2) Check out "The Basic Metaphor of Inifinity" and apply it to your theory. It is summed up with the theory that the mind makes "processes as things" and that this creates our mathematics.
3) When using your schematics of loops, remember that they are "dynamic 3-dimesional abstractions" not 2-dimesional static representations. Perhaps you could get better software to represent this. But even then the models could not compare to "reality".
I appreciate your insight and I am also a student of Boyd's (and of Liddell-Harts). Boyd's favourite General was Belisarius, as is mine.
I shall leave you with a favourite quote:
"I am your enemy, the first one you've ever had who was smarter than you. There is no teacher but the enemy. No one but the enemy will ever tell you what the enemy is going to do. No one but the enemy will ever teach you how to destroy and conquer. Only the enemy shows you where you are weak. Only the enemy tells you where he is strong. And the only rules of the game are what you can do to him and what you can stop him from doing to you. I am your enemy from now on. From now on I am your teacher."
Mazer Rackham
Posted by: Taylor | Saturday, March 18, 2006
Taylor,
Thank you for your excellent posts here and at the "Dreaming 5th Generation War" thread [1]. I don't have the same background knowledge as you, so I have trouble giving you a response that your excellent writing deserves.
However, I have read the Ender Saga, so we have that and Boyd in common :-) So could you illustrate your thoughts with examples from that series? That way we can turn the "magic cloud" of 5GW into meaningful analogies [2], and have a richer conversation. :-)
Thanks!
[1] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/07/20/dreaming-5th-generation-war.html
[2] http://tdaxp.blogspirit.com/archive/2005/11/21/globalization-is-water-the-magic-cloud.html
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Saturday, March 18, 2006
Dan, I will have to get back to you later regarding your request. I believe we have alot to learn from each other. :-)
Keep up the great site.
Later,
Taylor
Posted by: Taylor | Sunday, March 19, 2006
Dan,
A couple of other points before I get back to you.
First, to use an analogy of Ender's War, it would be fraught with misconceptions because it is a work of fiction by Card. Card has many great ideas in the book, but again it is fiction. However, the minds conception of itself is somewhat of a deception/truth paradox so the analogy may have some truth. Since I have that out of the way, I will endeavour to fulfill your request.
Second, take a look at "The Entropy Model" by Mark Herman from Booz-Allen-Hamilton. It is a strategy/tactical logarithm presently used by the US military.
Third, check out the double-mandala and the use of paradox breaking to induce creativity.
Fourth, apply the "cut-up" method to your theory.
Fifth, remember the OODA Loop itself WILL mutate into something else entirely. Strategy is never static, always dynamic. The best Strategic thinking is the one know one else knows about. So "The Art of War", "On War", etc. are only there to make others think they know what is going on.
Sixth, as a strategist, it is imperative to understand how ones own mind works as with the enemys, even in conceiving one's own sentience. The abstract use of symbols even needs to be understood in strategy, even as I type symbols to you.
Seventh, cryptomnesia is a very common human condition.
I shall post again soon.
Later,
Taylor
Posted by: Taylor | Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Dan,
As a good Air Force officer, I was reading the current issue of Air & Space Journal and I ran across this from Gen Deptula (who BTW is the Vice-Commander, Pacific Air Forces):
"Simply put, the goal of war is to have an adversary act according to our strategic interests. Ultimately, at some point in the future, we may wish to do so without the adversary’s even knowing it. Perhaps this feat will become the logical endgame of EBO—the securing of coalition objectives without resorting to destruction or visible disruption. Although this goal may elude us for quite a while, it remains realistic. Certainly, our current inability should not stifle this aspiration."
Here's the link:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/spr06/deptula.html
Take care,
Sonny
Posted by: Sonny | Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Taylor,
I'm looking forward to what you have to say!
Sonny,
Way cool!
Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, March 22, 2006