5GW Theory Timeline

Summary:

Thomas P. M. Barnett lays out his own personal 5GW dream, building from a post that appeared at Dreaming 5GW:

I was going to post there, on Weeks' site, but then I started to feel proprietary about it, meaning I was beginning to like the point enough to want it on my own site so I could find it months from now when writing Vol. III, which will definitely include an exploration of 5GW from my own peculiar perspective...

Rather than develop 5GW theory, he decides to approach the subject of fifth generation warfare that he has "essentially laid out in both books" which he has already written.

--namely, the use of System Perturbations to alter existing rule sets or to replace them entirely with new ones.

System perturbations may well appear quite negative at the beginning; however:

In short, sometimes you'll take beatings in order to give better beatings later on. Nietszchean, I know, but to me, 5GW is more about shaping (and yes, manipulating isn't a bad word either) your own population's morale than it is disabling your enemy's population (whom you seek to reduce through the best sort of seduction).

Utilizing 5GW against the Gap will produce 5GW responses, since "first responses are typically symmetrical." Aggressive 5GW offenses in the Gap will disorient authoritarian types while shaping the observations of those within the Gap wanting to escape the status quo.

The point is made that 9/11 was "Osama's reach for 5GW-level strategy" -- but did not actually achieve a 5GW level.

Thomas Barnett gives an xGW perspective on his two published books while offering a look at the still-as-yet-unwritten third book:

I'm in that reaching mode toward Vol. III more and more. To me, PNM was all about moving off 3GW and recognizing the realities of 4GW, while BFA suggested the institutional changes and strategic alliance choices necessary to move us beyond 4GW engagement (the Long War, as we call it now) and into what I would call 5GW shaping of the future battlespace (by locking down Asia and gaining its strategic aid in shrinking the Gap in all those places where our enemies are--to date--not yet strong, such as the entire Gap outside of the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan/Pakistan).

Finally, a 5GW scenario is suggested, in which America takes a false "beating in Afghanistan and Iraq" as long as a strategic alliance can be built with China:

I push China toward the self-realization of strategic alliance with the United States in a number of ways: 1) letting their "infiltration" of the rest of the Gap go unchecked (Oh, how lax of me!) and 2) by moving them closer to the identification as the new "face" of globalization...

I.e., by withdrawing in seeming defeat, America can not only force China to take a stand in helping to "shrink the Gap," but allow China to become an "alternative" to America in the eyes of those living in the Gap -- even if in reality America and China have very common goals with respect to the Gap.