Criticism of 5GW found in TDAXP Comments

Phil Jones commented at this TDAXP post:

Frankly, as far as I can tell, a lot of what goes under the title 5GW *is* the same as 4GW / Global Guerrillas, but given a happy-face. At best it’s an optimistic search for a way through the difficulties of the times. But mostly it’s simply remarking on the same phenomena as Lind and Robb but with a coda of “but don’t worry, we’re on top this, the good guys will triumph in the end”


It is the challenge for those working on 5GW theory for it not to be just 4GW (which itself is still being defined) and to be some thing new.

BTW, here is Arherrings current working definition (version 2.3):

Fifth Generation Warfare (5GW): An emergent theory of warfare premised upon manipulation of multiple economic, political, social and military forces in multiple domains to effect positional changes in systems and achieve a consilience of effects to leverage a specific goal or set of circumstances. (Arherring 1/12/07)

And a bonus definition.

Consilient effect: a ‘jumping together’ of effects by the linking of effects across domains in order to create a pattern for action. (Arherring 1/12/07)

It doesn’t sound like happy face 4GW/GG to me.

4 Responses

  1. I like Phil Jones a lot, but his initial comment seems strange. His second one was better.

  2. Working definition of “Global Guerrillas”

    Robb, J. (2005). Journal: Insurgents or global guerrillas?. Global Guerrillas. November 30, 2005. Available online:

    My post criticizing John Robb’s theory of “…

  3. wow great work. this page was a little above me, do you’ve got any sources for beginners who are seeking to better understand this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: