Thinking about xGW

In my own mind I keep coming back to the accuracy of Generations of War theory.  Purpleslog posted a great roundup of xGW discussion around the blogosphere, proving that no one agrees on what exactly the theory means.

My thoughts have changed over time as well. This was a particularly insightful comment:

Those who fault 4GW for its short comings have a lot of ammunition to support their arguments, but one could argue that the whole generational method to describe warfare is what is at faulty. It assumes that one generation replaces another, but the reality is that 1GW through 5GW are additive, they add to the repetoire (italics added -Steve) of options available. The first step to clarifying the debate is doing away with the generations of warfare, then we won’t have to waste time defending them, and instead can focus on the real issues at hand.

Repetoire is the key word here, as social movement theorists like Douglas McAdam, Sidney Tarrow, and Charles Tilly refers to repetoires of collective action to describe the means chosen by protest movements to achieve their political goals. Perhaps it could also be used to describe strategic paradigms (in the Kuhnian sense) that inform a belligerent about how one should make war. And as per the above quote, each strategic paradigm has been around forever, so each Generation does not evolve to displace each other, but instead merely adds to a belligerent’s repetoire of strategic paradigm. That being said, given one’s place in the social structure of the international political system, employing certain strategic paradigms is politically self-destructive (and irrational) or alternatively can lead to political success (and thus, rational). Thus, most states aren’t supposed to kill civilians, but some do and get away with it as well as the non-state actors they are fighting. These actors can fight one type of war without losing legitimacy, unlike more established states who are deeply embedded in a normative culture that prohibits ‘collateral damage’. Each Generation is a repetoire and has existed throughout time, but just because an actor has learned a repetoire doesn’t mean it can always use it and expect to win. That’s why history is important. It conditions which Generations/repetoires/strategic paradigms will be most successful to achieving one’s policy goals.