OPINION Vol.1, No.1 June 2013 - National Defence University

are not necessarily new. The four elements that were believed to have carried over into fourth
generation of warfare from the earlier generations are: -
• Mission orders that allowed maintaining a necessary level of flexibility through small
enabled groups under a unified direction.
• Reduced importance of centralized logistics to support high tempo operations. Living off
the land remains the key in 4GW.
• Reduced importance of fire power while at the same time increasing value of manoeuvre.
Small, agile and highly manoeuvrable forces will remain hallmark of 4GW.
• Purpose of 4GW was hence cited to collapse an enemy internally rather than ensuring his
complete physical destruction, identification and targeting centre of gravity remains the
key.
Implications of the Concept. As a consequence of the elements as mentioned above, complete
society became the object of war thus blurring the line between battlefield violence and safe zones
thus reducing gaps between war and politics and conflict and peace. One more addition was made
by declaring this war as non-Trinitarian thus focusing on the argument that nation states are no
longer relevant as they are losing their monopoly on violence.
Shifts as a Result of 4GW. The proponents also cited few major shifts in the warfare 4 , firstly, as
a result of the rise of mass media thus shifting focus of insurgents to strategic communications
campaigns instead of kinetic actions supported by guerrilla and terrorist operations. Secondly, rise
of USA as sole super power was also thought to be forcing an organizational shift on its enemies
and allies alike. Thirdly, a shift in participants was observed as highly diverse armed groups that
make up a modern insurgency would have widely differing motivations while operating in one
country. Finally, shift was observed in obscuring of fronts and increased exposures of rear areas
and base of operations. Centre of gravity was hence cited to be shifting from the most mobile
elements to popular will.
Weaknesses of the Concept
Over Blown Concept. The first reading of 4GW literature confronts one with a sense of doom for
conventional forces and the nation state as complete societies are cited as object of war. Terrorism,
a threat to which 4GW often refers, also seems overblown as it overestimates terrorists’ strength
and thus fails to understand problems in transforming battlefield victories into political success as
witnessed in Iraq. It is to be understood that nation states are relevant and so do conventional
military forces as they are required to deter aggression from nation states besides keeping in check
escalation potential of terrorists thereby reducing anarchy within societies. Increased anarchies in
nation states may have fatal consequences for the global security and peace thus returning to a pre-
Westphalian world.
Myth of New Wars. Fourth generation warfare proponents have created myth of new wars but the
reasons are murky as evolution of theory mainly remains the result of efforts to justify defeats of
western styled armies in Vietnam and Afghanistan. As nothing in existing material at that time
justified these defeats, fourth generation theorists first created generations of warfare model while
not understanding that evolution of warfare is in fact synthesis of forms 5 and hence cannot be
broken into neat lines. It was concluded incorrectly that western armed forces were still unprepared
to deal with changing nature of war, while not realizing that had nature of war changed, it could be
anything than war. They also forgot that changes in character have also been more contextual
rather than fundamental.
Understanding Evolving Nature of Society. In order to comprehend changing character of
warfare, developing an understanding of the evolving social and political systems remains a
requirement as collapse of nation states had been the basic assumption of the proponents of fourth
generation warfare, an equally fatal mistake as calling Clausewitz a prophet of total war. Following
merit consideration:-
• Changes in generations of warfare were not result of a sudden transformation.
• Changes in warfare occurred as a result of developments in the societies. Technology alone
has brought no significant change.
OPINION Vol.1 No.1 129 June 2013