Strategypage dismisses the idea that "fourth generation" warfare is anything new under the sun:
You see, this "fourth generation" thing is all about predicting the impact of new technologies. This has always been a problem, but has been particularly acute during the last century, as a growing number of new technologies have appeared. It's bad enough with the non-military ones, which can be put to work, with often disruptive (and unpredictable) effect. But the military technologies can be downright scary. But they're not fourth generation anything.
Hear, hear. I've already put in my two cents over the netwar/fourth generation nonsense:
In "The Forever War" article (via Real Clear Politics), the author thinks we are losing the war on terror and that we must do something radically different. The enemy is "networked" and we are not so we are losing, he says. This is typical of a way of thinking about warfare that is like some Atkins Combat Theory with fighting taking the role of the bad carbs: "High victory but low fighting! Adopt it now!" It is only the latest fad that promises the end of ugly death and destruction in warfare. Should we adopt, develop, and exploit technology? Absolutely. But war is still death and killing and suffering.
Obviously, we have a lot of work to evaluate and integrate a flood of new technology and weapons. But let's not pretend that the strategic level is something unique in the history of warfare. If so, explain to me why the average rate of march for an army on the advance seems to top out at 20 miles per day whether you are discussing modern armored forces or slogging swordsman.
But hey, it's new to them so it must be new!
