Elegant Irrelevance: Fourth Generation Warfare

Abstract

The Irish poet William Butler Yeats once created an entire system of history, based upon 2000-year cycles, which he termed "gyres." Much of his haunting, resonant poetry was based on this cosmology, which purported to link the burning of Troy, the birth of Christ, and the fast-approaching end of the 20th century together in a grand, unified worldview. His wife Georgie's "automatic writing," or mediumistic contacts, were the catalyst of this work. Later it became apparent she had faked the writing, thus destroying the basis for Yeats' historical theories. Only the beautiful poetry remained. This tale has a powerful cautionary moral for the professional soldier. Today we face a disordered, multipolar world. Our old dependable enemy, the Soviet Union, is gone. Theories abound that attempt to explain what brought us to this pass, and what we must do in order to survive. Many of these prescriptive ideas deserve our closest scrutiny. Along with appreciating the elegance of their construction and their soaring rhetoric, we must examine the underpinning s of these theories that so eagerly define our collective future.' This article examines the theory of fourth generation warfare through the lens of its method, the supporting facts, and its relevance. When held under the bright light of analysis, this theory appears untenable. Its methods are unclear, its facts contentious and open to widely varying interpretation s, and its relevance questionable. It is a remarkable attempt to explain our world, but it misses the mark. Fourth Generation Warfare Theory Fourth generation warfare theory models the development of warfare from 1648 to the present through the description of successive generations, or eras, of warfare.' Then, treating the past as prologue, it posits a prescriptive vision of the future. The central tenet of maturing fourth generation warfare theory is a non-trinitaria n, or post-Clausew itzian, view of the world.' Fourth Autumn 1993 51