![]() 4GW incorporates all political, economic, social, media, civilian and military means at the disposal of NSA. ![]() Genocidal acts like suicide bombing and other collateral fatalities are embedded for maximum effect. Moral/legal aspects, technology, globalisation, religious fundamentalism, etc shape 4GW’s moral and ethical norms, often creating novel ways of warfighting on both sides.ĤGW is generally characterised by complex and long-term conflict that includes ‘terrorism as its tactics’ with a non-national or transnational base. In the typology of modern warfare, 4GW refers to a generation of warfare where nation state loses its near monopoly on the conduct of combat, returning to the pre-modern mode when warfighting was diffused in groups, area and time. Literature cites the Roman Empire’s slave uprising (gladiator revolt) in 73 BC as its beginning, besides Hezbollah in modern Lebanon, or Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lank recently etc.ĤGW comprises a transformation of conflict where the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians (non-combatants) etc are blurred. NSA is, hence, a major participant rather than the state, although state forces are involved in response. Generally, the weaker/NSA side started the conflict. 4GW shares much in common with ‘asymmetric warfare’ and ‘LIC’ - low-intensity conflict (insurgency and guerrilla war). So, they (insurgents and freedom fighters) resorted to the tactics of propaganda, movement-building, secrecy, terror, etc to overcome the technological gap with state forces. Non-State Actors (NSAs) opposed to colonising/occupying powers could not withstand the state’s combat power. Defence against such attacking forces was to be organized in depth.įourth-Generation Warfare (4GW) was developed during the pre-Cold War period, when world powers sought to retain their colonies and captured territories. German Blitzkrieg (Lightening Warfare) in WW-II optimally demonstrated 3GW. The aim was to collapse enemy’s system of forces through ‘psychological dislocation’. ![]() Maneuvering troops in mechanised columns (tanks, motorised infantry, artillery) under air cover would infiltrate, bypass enemy defences, cut enemy lines of communication and logistics, while avoiding closing with and destroying enemy forces in frontal attacks. It was Third-Generation (3GW) that introduced ‘maneuver’ as opposed to ‘movement’. This stalemate of trench warfare was partially broken with the advent of tanks at the battle of Somme in 1916. The 2GW bogged down in the trinity of trench, barbed wire and machine gun. It involved linear fire and movement, supported by indirect artillery fire. ![]() Second-Generation Warfare (2GW) was conducted in the early stages of World War-I. Its tactics were line and column involving tightly ordered soldiers with top-down discipline. 1GW was characterised by ‘state retaining monopoly’ over conduct of warfare. Warfare was grouped by these authors into generations.įirst-Generation Warfare (1GW) included the conduct of war up to and coinciding with 17 th Century, precisely with the ‘Peace of Westphalia (1648)’, the treaty that brought peace to the Holy Roman Empire, ending ‘Thirty Years War (1618-48)’ in Europe and the development of smoothbore musket. Later in 2006, another retired USMC Col Thomas X Hammes in his book, The Sling and The Stone, expanded the concept. US Army/Marine Corps (USMC) authors William S Lind and others co-authored a Marine Corps Gazette article ‘The Changing Face of War: Into the Fourth Generation’ in 1989, categorising warfare. He can be reached at and tweets is fashionable in military circles to typify warfare. The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |